Inadmissible criticisms of appellatory nature – the challenge of the IOC Decision to withdraw its recognition of the International Boxing Association
SFT Judgment 4A_264/2024 of 12 September 2024, motion to set aside CAS 2023/A/9757
By Dr. Despina Mavromati
This is the SFT judgment in the motion to set aside the CAS Award that confirmed IOC decision to withdraw its recognition of the International Boxing Association (IBA) as an Olympic federation and to ban IBA from the next version of the Olympic Games (in Los Angeles) but to keep boxing as a discipline during the Paris Olympics 2024 in order to protect the athletes’ interests. The IBA, previously recognized by the IOC as the governing body for international boxing, faced allegations of corruption and governance issues, particularly after the 2016 Rio Olympics. Investigations revealed serious governance, financial, and ethical concerns and, despite attempts to address these, the IOC suspended its recognition in June 2023.
Before the SFT, the IBA invoked procedural errors, including the violation of its right to be heard. In essence, the SFT dismissed the grievances as being largely inadmissible criticisms of appellatory nature but also holding that the IBA’s arguments were duly considered and implicitly – if not explicitly – discarded by the CAS Panel.
In domestic arbitration cases, the parties can opt for the application of the 12th Chapter of PILA if this is provided in the Order of Procedure signed without reservations
The only relatively interesting remark in this case was that the parties had signed the Order of Procedure opting for the 12th Chapter of the PILA (governing international arbitration and providing for a more limited review of the arbitral award), even though the arbitration was domestic (as both parties were based in Switzerland).
