The case revolves around a dispute between Russian coaches and physicians, including Pavel Abratkiewicz, Victor Sivkov, Anna Vychik, Evgeny Zykov, Anatoly Chelyshev, Danil Chaban, and Konstantin Poltavets (the Applicants), and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) regarding their exclusion from the list of individuals invited to participate in the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics. The IOC's decision, communicated on January 19, 2018, excluded the Applicants from the list of support staff and officials, based on strict anti-doping criteria established by the IOC Executive Board on December 5, 2017. These criteria included barring coaches or medical staff whose athletes had committed anti-doping violations. The Applicants challenged their exclusion before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing they met the eligibility criteria. Their initial appeal was pending when, on February 1, 2018, CAS cleared 28 Russian athletes from the 2014 Sochi Olympics of anti-doping violations. The Applicants then requested the IOC to reconsider their inclusion, but the IOC responded that no formal requests had been submitted through the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC), and thus no review had been conducted.
On February 7, 2018, the Applicants filed an application with the CAS Ad Hoc Division, seeking inclusion in the Games and compensation for legal costs. The IOC contested the admissibility of the application, arguing the dispute did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Ad Hoc Division, which only handles disputes arising during the Games or within ten days preceding the Opening Ceremony (after January 30, 2018). The Applicants claimed the dispute arose on February 4, 2018, when the IOC communicated its refusal to reconsider their inclusion. However, the Panel, composed of Mohamed Abdel Raouf, Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, and Jinwon Park, determined the dispute originated on January 19, 2018, when the IOC first excluded them from the list. The Panel referenced the International Court of Justice's definition of a dispute as a disagreement on legal or factual matters and concluded the Applicants' challenge was directed at the January 19 decision, not the February 4 communication. The Panel noted the Applicants' February 1 email referred to the earlier decision and even mentioned seeking provisional measures, confirming the dispute predated the jurisdictional window.
The IOC's February 4 communication was deemed a reiteration of the January 19 decision, not a new ruling. Consequently, the Panel ruled it lacked jurisdiction, as the dispute arose before January 30, 2018. The case underscores the strict procedural and jurisdictional constraints of the CAS Ad Hoc Division and the IOC's discretionary authority in determining Olympic participation. The Applicants' attempt to secure inclusion was ultimately hindered by the timing of their challenge and the IOC's reliance on procedural requirements. The Panel's decision highlights the importance of adhering to jurisdictional timelines in sports arbitration and the procedural complexities in Olympic-related disputes. The final decision affirmed the CAS Ad Hoc Division could not address the Applicants' case, as the dispute stemmed from the January 19 decision.