The case revolves around a dispute between the Moldova National Olympic Committee (MNOC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) concerning swimmer Octavian Gutu's eligibility to represent Moldova at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. The IOC had ruled Gutu ineligible due to his prior representation of Romania at the 2007 Swimming World Championships without Moldova's consent. The MNOC sought to overturn this decision, arguing that Gutu's participation for Romania was unauthorized and thus invalid, making him eligible to compete for Moldova again. However, the MNOC failed to provide adequate documentation, such as identity certificates or proof of nationality, to support their claim.
During proceedings, it was revealed that Gutu had represented Moldova at the 2004 Athens Olympics but switched to Romania in 2007 without Moldova's approval. The MNOC presented letters from the Romanian National Olympic Committee (RNOC) and the Romanian Swimming Association stating they had no objection to Gutu representing Moldova in Beijing. However, critical approval from the International Swimming Federation (FINA) was missing, which was required under Rule 42 of the Olympic Charter. This rule mandates that an athlete who has represented one country in recognized competitions cannot represent another unless three years have passed or the relevant NOCs and International Federation grant a waiver. In Gutu's case, the three-year period had not elapsed, and FINA's approval was absent.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division, operating under the CAS Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games and Swiss Private International Law, found the MNOC's application insufficient. The panel highlighted that while the RNOC and MNOC did not oppose Gutu's participation, FINA's approval was mandatory and lacking. The MNOC's failure to provide comprehensive evidence, including details about Gutu's dual nationality or the circumstances of his 2007 representation, further weakened their case. The panel upheld the IOC's decision, ruling Gutu ineligible to compete for Moldova in Beijing due to non-compliance with the Olympic Charter.
The case underscores the strict procedural and regulatory standards in international sports arbitration. The Olympic Charter's provisions are designed to prevent athletes from opportunistically switching nationalities for competitive advantage, ensuring fairness and integrity in international competitions. The MNOC's inability to demonstrate compliance with these requirements, particularly FINA's approval, led to the denial of their request. The decision reaffirms the importance of adhering to the Olympic Charter's eligibility criteria to maintain the spirit of fair play in global sports.