The case involves Georgian tennis players Oksana Kalashinikova and Ekaterine Gorgodze, who appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against their exclusion from the Women’s Doubles event at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games. The dispute centered on whether their entry had been properly submitted by the Georgian Tennis Federation (GTF) and the Georgian National Olympic Committee (GNOC). The players claimed they received verbal and written assurances from GTF officials that their entry was confirmed, but the International Tennis Federation (ITF) stated it had not received any formal nomination from the GNOC or GTF. The players sought eligibility to compete, arguing their exclusion was unjust, as they believed their rankings qualified them for participation. They invoked principles of estoppel and natural justice, contending they should not be penalized for administrative errors by their national bodies.
The ITF defended its decision, emphasizing that Olympic participation requires formal written nominations from National Olympic Committees, and no such submission was received for the players. The ITF argued that late inclusion of the players would unfairly disadvantage other teams already preparing for the event. The GNOC and GTF provided conflicting statements, with the GTF supporting the players' claims while the GNOC failed to participate in the arbitration hearing or justify its absence. The CAS panel examined whether the players were properly nominated and concluded that the GNOC’s failure to submit the required documentation justified their exclusion. The panel upheld the ITF’s decision, stressing that Olympic participation is not an automatic right and depends on strict adherence to procedural requirements.
The ruling highlighted the exclusive authority of NOCs in athlete selection and the importance of formal nomination processes. The panel dismissed the players' claims, including arguments based on estoppel and natural justice, and confirmed the ITF’s revised entry list. The decision underscored that administrative failures by national committees cannot override established procedures, and late additions would compromise the fairness of the competition. The players were required to bear their legal costs, and the case reinforced the principle that athletes must rely on their NOCs to fulfill nomination obligations. The outcome demonstrated the balance between athletes' aspirations and the need for strict compliance with Olympic qualification rules.