CAS Hears Russia’s Appeal Against Olympic Ban Over Annexed Territories Recognition

The Lausanne-based Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) heard Russia’s appeal on Friday against the sanctions imposed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) on the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC). The IOC banned the ROC with immediate effect for “breach of the charter” back in October 2023. This step was taken following the ROC’s recognition of the Olympic council of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR), annexed territories of Ukraine, as its members.

Such an action violated the national integrity of the National Olympic Committee (NOC) of Ukraine and is contrary to the spirit of the Olympic Charter. As a result of the suspension, the ROC stopped receiving funding from the Olympic Movement, along with other benefits. Nevertheless, this ban did not impact the participatory status of Russian and Belarusian athletes at the Paris Olympics 2024 and Milano Cortina Winter Olympics 2026, as the IOC stated it would reconsider this at a later stage.

On November 6, 2023, the CAS, known as the global authority for settling sports-related disputes, registered an appeal from the ROC against the IOC’s decision, requesting to overturn the order and reinstate its status as an official Olympic committee. This was following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Post invasion, the IOC issued recommendations urging sports federations and organizers to exclude Russian and Belarusian athletes and officials from international sports events. Nevertheless, the IOC allowed Russian and Belarusian athletes to participate as neutral athletes in individual events without their national flag, emblem or anthem, stating that individual athletes should not be held accountable for the actions of the government.

The details of the appeal hearing are yet to be disclosed. Any decision made by the CAS will be binding, although the involved parties will retain the right to appeal under certain conditions to the Swiss Federal Tribunal. For more details, see the original coverage at Jurist.