The case revolves around Alessandra Bassani-Antivari, a 23-year-old alpine skier and Grenada national, who sought to compete in the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Despite meeting the qualification criteria and being ranked 474th in the FIS Slalom rankings, her participation was blocked by the Grenada Olympic Association (GOA). Bassani-Antivari, originally an Italian native, had competed internationally for Grenada since 1998 under the Grenada International Sports Foundation (GISF), which had applied for affiliation with GOA but was never approved. Although GISF was recognized by the Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS) in 1998, GOA refused to endorse GISF's affiliation. In August 2001, GISF submitted the necessary documentation for Bassani-Antivari's Olympic entry, but GOA did not forward her entry form to the Salt Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC). In December 2001, GOA informed SLOC that Grenada would not participate in the Games, and in January 2002, it confirmed it would not sanction Bassani-Antivari's participation due to GISF's lack of affiliation.
Bassani-Antivari attempted to bypass GOA by submitting her and her coach's entry forms directly to SLOC on 1 February 2002. Upon arrival in Salt Lake City, she was informed by the IOC that her entry had not been submitted by GOA. Despite her efforts to contact GOA, the organization refused to reconsider. On 7 February 2002, she appealed to the IOC, which denied her request, citing Rule 49(1) of the Olympic Charter, which grants NOCs exclusive authority to enter competitors, and Rule 41(2), which assigns responsibility to the NOC's Chef de Mission. The IOC emphasized that individual participation without NOC oversight was not permitted and that GOA was not obligated to send competitors.
Bassani-Antivari then filed an application with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division on 11 February 2002, seeking entry into the Games. The CAS panel, composed of Yves Fortier, Dirk-Reiner Martens, and Maidie Oliveau, held a hearing on 12 February 2002. The panel's jurisdiction was based on Rule 74 of the Olympic Charter and the CAS ad hoc Rules, governed by Swiss law. Bassani-Antivari argued that CAS had jurisdiction either under Rule 74 or the arbitration clause in her entry form, even though it lacked GOA endorsement. She contended that GOA was obligated to accept GISF's affiliation, that her exclusion resulted from bureaucratic issues beyond her control, and that the IOC had discretion to override GOA's decision under Rule 49(1).
The CAS panel ruled that the entry form, lacking GOA's endorsement, was a unilateral document with no binding legal effect and could not trigger the arbitration clause. Consequently, Bassani-Antivari lacked standing to bring the dispute before CAS, which therefore had no jurisdiction. The panel affirmed that under Rule 49(1), NOCs have exclusive authority to enter competitors, leaving no room for the IOC or CAS to override this decision. The panel concluded that neither the IOC nor CAS had the discretion to enter a competitor individually, and Bassani-Antivari's application was dismissed.
The case highlights the strict procedural requirements for Olympic participation and the central role of NOCs in the entry process. Bassani-Antivari's arguments, including her claim that the IOC could override GOA's decision, were rejected, with the panel emphasizing that NOCs hold exclusive authority over entries. The decision also underscored that disputes involving NOC decisions should be addressed in national courts or other competent forums, as the Olympic Charter does not provide for direct athlete appeals to the IOC or CAS in such matters. Ultimately, the panel's ruling reinforced the principle that Olympic participation is contingent on NOC endorsement, leaving no room for individual exceptions.