Belarus Tennis Federation (BTF) v. International Tennis Federation (ITF)

At a glance

Parties

Belarus Tennis Federation (BTF) v. International Tennis Federation (ITF)

Case no.

CAS 2022/A/8914

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeals arbitration under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration; seat Lausanne

Treaty

None. Appeal under Article 33(c) of the ITF Constitution; ITF Constitution and Olympic Charter applied, with English law applying subsidiarily

Tribunal

Jan Paulsson (President), Ulrich Haas, Romano F. Subiotto

Sector

Sport (tennis); governance of a sports federation

Outcome

Appeal dismissed (9 February 2024). The ITF Council's decision of 6 May 2022 suspending BTF's membership was confirmed.

Amount

BTF sought at least EUR 29,000 towards its legal costs. The published text omits the operative paragraphs on costs.

The dispute

After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the ITF Board revoked BTF's entries to all 2022 ITF competitions on 1 March 2022 (the "Competitions Decision"). On the same day it provisionally suspended BTF's membership. On 6 May 2022 the ITF Council ratified the suspension at an Extraordinary General Meeting under Article 4(b) of the ITF Constitution (the "Membership Decision"), about 80% voting for it. The Council's ground was that Belarus had "supported and facilitated" the invasion, and that BTF's continued membership would seriously damage the international standing of tennis. BTF appealed to CAS. It argued that it had been denied due process and a reasoned decision, that the decision had no legal basis, and that it breached the Olympic principles of political neutrality and autonomy. It also argued that the decision was discriminatory, inconsistent with how other military conflicts had been treated, and disproportionate. The ITF answered that the Competitions Decision was time-barred and that the suspension was an administrative membership matter, not a disciplinary one. It said the decision was a rational use of Article 4(b) that was entitled to deference.

Key holdings

1. The appeal is admissible only against the Membership Decision. The Competitions Decision was a final Board decision that BTF had not appealed in time, so BTF's exclusion from team competitions falls outside the Panel's review. ¶¶ 101–104
2. There was no failure of due process. Article 4(b) requires only a Council resolution, not a reasoned decision. The reasons were set out in the EGM agenda, which BTF received in advance, and BTF was heard at the EGM. In any event, any procedural flaw would have been cured by the de novo CAS appeal. ¶¶ 109–110, 131–133
3. The suspension is disciplinary in nature, contrary to the ITF's position. It imposed adverse effects because of BTF's conduct, namely its failure to distance itself from the invasion. This distinguishes the case from the FIFA and UEFA competition bans in CAS 2022/A/8708 and 8709. ¶¶ 113–130
4. The Panel has full power of review under Article R57, but it exercises judicial restraint where the sports body has a margin of appreciation that involves sport-specific judgment. Under English law the question is whether the decision was made lawfully, not whether the Panel would have decided it differently. ¶¶ 134–137
5. Article 4(b) is a sufficient legal basis and a lex specialis, so the complaints procedure in Article 33 did not apply. The quorum and the two-thirds majority were met. Whether BTF's continued membership would seriously damage tennis's international standing was first a matter for the Council, and its assessment was not irrational or improperly driven by the IOC's recommendations. ¶¶ 142–157
6. The suspension does not breach the Olympic principles of neutrality and autonomy, because there was no evidence that the Council acted under government pressure. It is not discriminatory, since Article 4 applies to all members equally. BTF's comparisons with other conflicts lacked a factual basis. ¶¶ 158–163
7. The suspension is proportionate. It pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the international standing of tennis, and individual Belarusian athletes remained free to compete in ITF events. BTF never distanced itself from the invasion. ¶¶ 164–168

Procedural history

1. 1 March 2022The ITF Board revoked BTF's entries to ITF competitions and provisionally suspended its membership, pending ratification by the Council.
2. 6 May 2022At the EGM, the ITF Council ratified the suspension of BTF's membership.
3. 26 May 2022BTF filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS. Its Appeal Brief followed in early June 2022.
4. 6 July 2022The President of the Appeals Arbitration Division rejected BTF's application for provisional measures. The reasons were issued on 2 December 2022.
5. 2 December 2022The Panel was constituted, with Jan Paulsson as President.
6. 17 April 2023Hearing held by videoconference.
7. 9 February 2024Award: appeal dismissed and the 6 May 2022 decision confirmed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Jan Paulsson President, CAS Panel
• Ulrich Haas Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the claimant
• Romano F. Subiotto Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the respondent

For the claimant

Maxim Tatarovich

For the respondent

ITF legal services · Kendrah Potts

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• tennis
• membership suspension
• Russian invasion of Ukraine
• Belarus
• Article 4(b) ITF Constitution
• disciplinary vs administrative measure
• political neutrality
• autonomy of sport
• Olympic Charter
• IOC recommendation
• proportionality
• standard of review
• judicial restraint
• admissibility
• time limit
• Article R57 CAS Code
• Article R31 CAS Code
• due process

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.