CAS 2016/A/4511 Bulgarian Weightlifting Federation (BWF) v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)
Related cases:
- CAS 2015_A_4129 Demir Demirev, Stoyan Enev, Ivaylo Filev, Maya Ivanove, Milka Maneva, Ivan Markov, Dian Minchev, Asen Muradiov, Ferdi Nazif, Nadezha-May Nguen & Vladimir Urumov vs IWF
October 6, 2015 - CAS 2015_A_4319 BWF vs IWF
January 29, 2016 - CAS 2017_A_5127 BWF vs IWF
December 18, 2017
- Weightlifting
- Disciplinary decision taken by the IWF Executive Board against a national federation
- Validity of disciplinary sanctions taken by circular vote
- Referral of the case back to the previous instance
- Applicability of the principle ne bis in idem on disciplinary sanctions
1. None of the applicable IWF provisions mention the possibility for the IWF Executive Board to make a decision outside a meeting in person. This result of a systematic interpretation of the IWF Constitution and By-Laws cannot be healed by reference to general Swiss law. In case of absence of a statutory provision on a circular vote, only the written agreement of all members of the Executive Board empowered to vote can be held equal to a majority decision of an Executive Board meeting in person and thus be a valid decision. Furthermore, no evidence has demonstrated that circular votes on the IWF Executive Board level are a general practice accepted as legally binding and, thus, could be considered as customary law.
2. Even if the CAS must be able to not only examine the formal aspects of the appealed decision but also, above all, to evaluate all facts and legal issues involved in the dispute, the panel’s function is to review the propriety, in the broadest sense, of the decision of the decision maker; it is not to become the decision maker itself. Therefore, if the formulation of the request for relief does not allow the CAS panel to render the decision, the case may be referred back to the federation for a further attempt to reach a decision.
3. The application of the principle of ne bis in idem on disciplinary sanctions imposed by an International Sports Federation seated in Switzerland requires identity of the object, identity of the parties and identity of the facts, or otherwise formulated, the effective purpose of the sanction must be the same (even if the underlying motivations are different), the sanction must be attributable to the same behaviour, and the sanction results in the same consequence.
In March 2015 the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) reported multiple anti-doping rule violations after the samples of 11 Bulgarian weightlifters tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. On 10 June 2015 the IWF Hearing Panel decided to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on 4 Athletes for their second anti-doping rule violation and a 9 month period of ineligibility on the other 7 Athletes.
In this case the IWF accepted that the Athletes established that the positive tests were caused by contaminated food supplements, provided by the Bulgarian Weightlifting Federation (BWF), which previously had been used without issues.
In July 2015 The Bulgarian 11 weightlifters appealed the IWF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). However the Panel decided on 6 October 2015 (CAS 2015/A/4129) to uphold the IWF Hearing Panel decision of 10 June 2015.
As a consequence the IWF decided in November 2015 to impose a $ 500,000 fine on the BWF. When appealed with CAS the Panel decided on 29 January 2016 (CAS 2015/A/4319) to annul the $ 500,000 fine and to uphold the decision not to allow the BWF athletes to participate in the next Olympic Games. However on 1 March 2016 the IWF decided to re-impose the $ 500,000 fine on the BWF.
Hereafter in March 2016 the BWF filed a new appeal with CAS (CAS 2016/A/4511) againt the imposition of the $ 500,000 fine.
The BWF asserted that the IWF Executive Board decision was invalid and requested the Panel to reduce the fine. Further the BWF raised various argument why the IWF Executive Board could not be understood as having delegated its decision making power as to a fine on BWF to the IWF President.
The Panel rules that there is no valid decision by the IWF Executive Board imposing a fine of $ 500,000 on BWF in place. It decides to remit the case back to the IWF Executive Board for a further attempt to reach a decision.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case at hand the Panel finds that a suspension of the BWF from membership in the IWF by the IWF Executive Board for a period of one year starting from the date of the IWF Executive Board’s decision would be an adequate and proportionate sanction based upon the failures the BWF.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 27 January 2017 that:
1.) The appeal filed by the Bulgarian Weightlifting Federation on 22 March 2016 is partially upheld.
2.) The decision of the Executive Board of the International Weightlifting Federation communicated to the Bulgarian Weightlifting Federation by its President on 1 March 2016, including the fine of USD 500,000 imposed thereby, is declared invalid. The matter is referred back to the Executive Board for further evaluation and consideration.
3.) (…).
4.) (…).
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
