The case involves an appeal by the Hellenic Olympic Committee (HOC) and Nikolaos Kaklamanakis against decisions made by the International Sailing Federation (ISAF) concerning the abandonment of Race 1 of the Men’s Windsurfer Mistral event at the 2004 Athens Olympics. The appeal was heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division, with a panel comprising Prof. Richard McLaren, Justice Deon van Zyl, and Mr. Sharad Rao. The dispute arose when Race 1 was abandoned following protests from other sailors, despite Kaklamanakis leading and completing the race under the assumption that the finish flags had been correctly raised. The Protest Committee, after a three-hour hearing, ruled to abandon the race, and Kaklamanakis’ subsequent request for redress was denied. The CAS panel examined whether the Protest Committee’s decisions violated due process and whether the exclusion of observers, including the HOC, constituted unfairness. The panel concluded that the Protest Committee acted within its jurisdiction and that the exclusion of observers did not amount to a lack of due process. The applicable rules, including ISAF regulations and the CAS ad hoc Rules, were reviewed, confirming the Protest Committee’s authority to restrict attendance and that all relevant evidence had been considered. The panel upheld the Protest Committee’s decisions, finding no grounds to overturn them.
The case highlights the limited scope for appeals in sailing competitions and the deference given to protest committees unless there is clear evidence of bad faith or procedural unfairness. The re-race of the event proceeded as scheduled on August 17, 2004. The CAS panel’s decision reaffirmed the autonomy of sports federations in regulating their competitions while ensuring adherence to fundamental principles of fairness and due process. The document outlines the procedures and rules governing protests, redress, hearings, and appeals in competitive sailing, particularly focusing on the role of international juries and the finality of their decisions. A request for redress can be made if a boat's finishing position is significantly worsened due to improper actions by the race or protest committee, with the protest committee responsible for making fair arrangements, such as adjusting scores or abandoning the race. Appeals against a protest committee's decisions are generally permitted unless the right to appeal is denied under Rule 70.4, which applies to decisions made by an international jury constituted under Appendix M.
The case of HOC & Nikolaos Kaklamanakis v. ISAF illustrates these rules in practice. Kaklamanakis, a competitor in the Men’s Windsurfer Mistral Competition, protested the handling of Race 1, arguing that the protest committee misapplied the rules and violated due process. The protest committee, acting as an international jury, denied his request for redress, and under Rule 70.4, this decision was unappealable. Kaklamanakis and the HOC challenged this at CAS, arguing procedural unfairness. However, the CAS upheld the protest committee's decision, confirming that Rule 70.4 bars appeals from properly constituted international juries unless there is evidence of bad faith or a lack of due process. The document emphasizes that while international jury decisions are typically final, CAS retains jurisdiction to intervene if fundamental procedural fairness is violated. The case demonstrates the balance between finality in competition rulings and the protection of competitors' rights, reinforcing the authority of international juries in sailing disputes while allowing for oversight in cases of serious misconduct.
The document further discusses a case involving a protest committee decision under the Sailing Instructions, specifically Rule 17.10, which was deemed non-appealable under the Racing Rules. The CAS asserted its jurisdiction to interpret and apply these rules, emphasizing its authority to overrule decisions by sport federations if they demonstrate a lack of good faith or fail to follow due process. The applicants argued that due process was not observed, but the panel found no evidence to support this claim, noting that the protest committee acted within its rights. The applicant and other competitors attended the protest committee meetings on August 15 and 16, 2004, though observers were restricted as per the Chair's discretion. On the second day, the HOC’s request to attend was denied, a decision consistent with the earlier ruling on observers. The panel concluded that the protest committee's actions did not violate due process, and thus there was no basis to override Rule 70.4 of the Racing Rules.