The case involves a dispute brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division by the Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF) and the Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee (ANOC) against the International Hockey Federation (FIH). The dispute stemmed from a decision by the FIH Judicial Commission regarding anti-doping violations by two Spanish hockey players during a qualifying event for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. The Applicants sought to annul the FIH decision and disqualify the Spanish team from the Olympics, arguing procedural unfairness because they were not given a chance to respond to allegations of sabotage against the Spanish team.
The background traces back to April 2008, when a Women's World Hockey Qualifier in Baku, Azerbaijan, saw the Spanish team qualify for the Olympics. Anti-doping tests later revealed adverse findings for two Spanish players. The FIH Judicial Commission found one player guilty but imposed no sanction due to lack of fault, while the other was cleared. The Applicants claimed the decision was procedurally unfair, as they were implicated in alleged sabotage but not heard. They had previously filed two unsuccessful applications with the CAS ad hoc Division, both dismissed for lack of standing. In this third attempt, they argued the dispute arose on 2 August 2008, when they received the FIH decision.
The CAS Panel examined jurisdiction and standing, noting its authority was limited to disputes arising within ten days before the Olympics' opening ceremony. It concluded it could rule without a hearing. The key issues were whether the Panel had jurisdiction and whether the Applicants had standing. The Panel found no adverse ruling against the Applicants, meaning they lacked standing, and the dispute did not fall within the jurisdictional timeframe. Without standing or jurisdiction, the request for relief—preliminary or final—could not proceed. The Panel dismissed the application, upholding prior decisions and emphasizing the need for direct and timely legal standing in CAS proceedings.
The Panel assumed jurisdiction without definitively ruling on it, as the dispute's timing was contested—whether it arose when the FIH decision was issued on 17 July 2008 or when the Applicants received it on 2 August 2008. Regarding standing, the Panel referenced a prior award (First Award) which found the Applicants lacked standing. The Applicants argued new evidence showed the FIH decision included adverse findings of sabotage against them, granting them standing. However, the Panel reviewed the decision and found no adverse findings against the Applicants concerning the doping violations or sample substitution. It upheld the First Award's conclusion, stressing consistency between CAS panels in similar cases.
The Panel declined to revisit the First Award's reasoning, noting the Applicants' attempt to appeal it was precluded by CAS ad hoc Rules. It affirmed the First Award's correctness and dismissed the application due to lack of standing, without addressing the merits or the Judicial Commission's decision. The application filed by the AFHF and ANOC on 7 August 2008 was dismissed, reinforcing the strict procedural requirements in CAS proceedings.