The case revolves around a dispute between the Russian Olympic Committee (RNOC) and the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) concerning the allocation of an unused quota position for the Dressage event at the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. The conflict arose when the FEI refused to allocate a second individual Dressage qualification to Russian rider Alexandra Korelova after Finland and Israel waived their places. Instead, the FEI reallocated these spots to riders from Australia and France. The Russian Equestrian Federation (REF) contested this decision, but the FEI Secretary General rejected their request, citing procedural constraints. The matter was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division, which had jurisdiction under the CAS Arbitration Rules and Swiss law. The panel, composed of three legal experts, examined the FEI Regulations, particularly Articles 605, 608, and 624, which govern quota allocation and reallocation procedures. The FEI argued that reallocation should follow the World Dressage Riders Ranking List, while the RNOC maintained that Korelova met the qualification criteria. The panel emphasized the need for a contextual and purposive interpretation of the regulations, noting that the final decision rested with the CAS. The dispute highlighted the importance of fair and timely application of rules in high-stakes Olympic events. The CAS ultimately ruled in favor of the RNOC, finding that the FEI had incorrectly allocated the unused positions by relying on an incomplete ranking list. The panel determined that the RNOC was entitled to a second Dressage place under a proper interpretation of the FEI regulations. However, to avoid displacing the already-qualified Australian and French riders, the CAS recommended that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) invite the Russian rider as an additional competitor, maintaining the maximum of 10 individual places. This solution balanced regulatory compliance with fairness and practical considerations. The decision underscored the role of legal interpretation in resolving sporting disputes and the need for equitable outcomes in Olympic qualification processes. The CAS's ruling set aside the FEI's earlier allocation and affirmed the RNOC's right to a second place, ensuring a just resolution to the dispute.