Maxim Agapitov, Russian Weightlifting Federation (RWF) v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)

At a glance

Parties

Maxim Agapitov and the Russian Weightlifting Federation (RWF) v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)

Case no.

CAS 2022/A/9167

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, Appeals Arbitration Division; Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2021 edition)

Treaty

None; appeal under Article 43.1 of the IWF Constitution and Article 64 of the IWF EDC Rules

Tribunal

André Brantjes (President), Jacques Radoux, Hans Nater

Sector

Weightlifting; sports governance and elections

Outcome

Appeal admissible but dismissed. The IWF EDC decision of 31 August 2022 was confirmed (operative part notified 11 January 2023; reasoned award 12 June 2023).

Amount

No monetary claim. The costs paragraphs of the operative part are redacted in the published award.

The dispute

The IWF held a hybrid Special and Electoral Congress in Tirana, Albania, on 25 and 26 June 2022, with eleven elections. After a miscalculation of the majority needed for Secretary General Treasurer, a second round for that post was held online on 30 June 2022. The RWF and others asked the IWF Ethics and Disciplinary Commission (EDC) to annul the whole Congress, and the EDC dismissed the challenge on 31 August 2022. On appeal to CAS, the RWF and its President, Maxim Agapitov, alleged several defects: irregular candidate withdrawals in the presidential election; commission members declared elected without a vote; a wrong count on the exemption from the 70-year age limit; an improper online second round; lack of transparency; and an EDC panel that was not independent. The IWF argued that Mr Agapitov lacked standing, that new grievances had not gone through internal remedies, that the persons elected should have been named as respondents, and that procedural objections were forfeited because they were not raised at the Congress.

Key holdings

1. Exhaustion of internal remedies is a question of admissibility, not jurisdiction. CAS has jurisdiction under Article 43.1 of the IWF Constitution, and the appeal was filed within the 21-day time limit. ¶¶ 44–50
2. Mr Agapitov has standing. He signed the complaint in his own name as well as for the RWF. In any event, as a prospective candidate he has a legal interest under Article 64 of the IWF EDC Rules, and the threshold for that interest in elections is not set high. ¶¶ 58–68
3. The new arguments are admissible because they support the same request made at first instance: annulment of the entire Congress. Any defect in the constitution of the EDC panel is cured by the CAS's de novo review under Article R57. ¶¶ 75–86
4. The unpublished 2022 EDC Rules, which the Executive Board never approved, do not apply. The case is governed by the IWF Constitution as amended on 30 January 2022 and the 2021 EDC Rules, with Swiss law applying subsidiarily. ¶¶ 95–96
5. The persons elected did not have to be joined as respondents. Under Article 75 of the Swiss Civil Code, only the association itself has standing to be sued, and the IWF protects their interests. ¶¶ 100–104
6. Good faith under Article 2 of the Swiss Civil Code required the appellants to object at the Congress. Because they did not, they forfeited their objections. In any case, the defects did not affect the results: Mr Al-Mana's withdrawal broke the rules but did not change the presidential outcome, and the age-exemption votes reached a simple majority once blank votes were excluded. ¶¶ 107–126
7. The only relief sought was annulment of all elections, which would be disproportionate. A chaotic congress is not in itself a breach of the rules, and the online second round for General Secretary was an appropriate solution. The appeal is dismissed and the EDC decision confirmed. ¶¶ 127–134; operative part

Procedural history

1. 25–26 June 2022IWF Special and Electoral Congress held in Tirana, Albania.
2. 30 June 2022Online second round held for the post of Secretary General Treasurer.
3. 4 July 2022The RWF, the Belarussian and Colombian federations and Ali Moradi file a complaint with the IWF EDC.
4. 31 August 2022The IWF EDC panel dismisses the challenges; its decision is notified on 5 September 2022.
5. 26 September 2022Statement of Appeal filed with CAS.
6. 17 November 2022Panel constituted; the same Panel is appointed in CAS 2022/A/9168 and 9169, which were withdrawn on 16 December 2022.
7. 20 December 2022Hearing held by video-conference.
8. 11 January 2023Operative part of the award notified: appeal dismissed.
9. 12 June 2023Reasoned award issued.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• André Brantjes President, CAS Panel — appointed by the institution
• Jacques Radoux Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the claimant
• Hans Nater Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the respondent

For the claimant

Anna Antseliovich · Artem Patsev

For the respondent

Jean-Pierre Morand · Michael Kottmann

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• weightlifting
• IWF elections
• electoral congress
• annulment of elections
• exhaustion of internal remedies
• standing to appeal
• legal interest
• de novo review
• Article R57 CAS Code
• passive legitimation
• Article 75 Swiss Civil Code
• good faith
• Article 2 Swiss Civil Code
• forfeiture of procedural objections
• candidate withdrawal
• age eligibility
• proportionality
• sports governance

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