Russian Luge Federation (RLF), Aleksandr Gorbatsevich, Sofiia Mazur, Andrei Bogdanov, Iurii Prokhorov, Ekaterina Fomina, Polina Grigoreva v. Fédération Internationale de Luge (FIL)

At a glance

Parties

Russian Luge Federation (RLF) and six Russian luge athletes (Aleksandr Gorbatsevich, Sofiia Mazur, Andrei Bogdanov, Iurii Prokhorov, Ekaterina Fomina, Polina Grigoreva) v. International Luge Federation (FIL)

Case no.

CAS 2025/A/11592

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal procedure under the CAS Code (Article R47). Jurisdiction rested on a specific arbitration agreement in the FIL President's letter of 21 July 2025. The FIL Statutes apply, and Austrian law subsidiarily.

Tribunal

Prof. Luigi Fumagalli (President), Ms Annett Rombach, Prof. Christoph Vedder

Sector

Sport; luge; eligibility of Russian athletes

Outcome

The RLF's appeal was partially upheld, and the athletes' appeal was dismissed. The FIL Congress resolutions of 18 June 2025 were set aside in part. They remain enforceable only against Russian athletes who do not meet the IOC criteria for Individual Neutral Athletes (AIN) at the 2026 Milano-Cortina Winter Olympics. Operative part issued 31 October 2025; reasoned award 22 January 2026.

The dispute

After the Russia-Ukraine War began on 24 February 2022, the FIL Executive Board excluded all Russian athletes, coaches and officials from FIL events. The FIL Court of Arbitration set that decision aside on 7 April 2022 as nationality-based discrimination. The FIL then amended Article 4.5.8 of its Statutes to allow emergency measures. On 23 September 2022 the Executive Board relied on it to suspend again all participation of RLF athletes and officials (the Emergency Resolution). The 2023, 2024 and 2025 Congresses confirmed the suspension. On 18 June 2025 the 73rd Congress also refused to create an AIN programme for the 2026 Olympic Winter Games and their qualifying events. The RLF and six athletes argued that the blanket ban breached Article 4.5.8 (individual causal link and proportionality), was discriminatory, infringed EU competition law and disregarded the 2022 FIL Court of Arbitration award. The FIL objected to CAS jurisdiction for failure to exhaust internal remedies, challenged the athletes' standing and the admissibility of several requests, and defended the ban as a safety measure.

Key holdings

1. CAS has jurisdiction. The FIL President's letter of 21 July 2025 accepted that CAS should hear the case directly and appointed an arbitrator without reservation. It was a valid specific arbitration agreement under Swiss law, and it covered the individual athletes as well. In any event, the internal appeal to the FIL Court of Arbitration was not an effective remedy: it went unanswered in a dispute where time was of the essence. ¶¶ 86–97
2. The appeal is admissible only against the 18 June 2025 resolutions. The challenge to the 2022, 2023 and 2024 decisions was out of time under Article R49. The requests to declare eligible the athletes' entourage and all other unnamed Russian lugers were vague and had no legal basis. ¶¶ 100–101
3. Deference to association autonomy is not absolute. A sports body must act fairly, in line with mandatory law and its own rules, and not arbitrarily. The Panel's task was to review compliance with the FIL Statutes. The Panel left the athletes' standing open because the RLF's claim had to be examined anyway. ¶¶ 113–120
4. Safety at luge competitions is a legitimate aim. But an overall ban on all Russian athletes is disproportionate in 2025: less intrusive measures, such as enhanced security controls, were available, and no incidents were reported where Russian athletes competed as neutrals. Measures that were proportionate in 2022 can become disproportionate as the context changes, including the IOC's AIN Criteria of March 2023. ¶¶ 131–136
5. Article 4.5.8 permits measures only against persons with a proven causal personal link to the triggering event. The drafting history shows this requirement was added in June 2022 to comply with Austrian law. A blanket ban contradicts the provision's wording and purpose. Any link must be assessed case by case, for example through expressed support for the war or service in the army or security forces. ¶¶ 137–139
6. The IOC AIN criteria for the 2026 Olympic Winter Games are the benchmark. The resolutions are set aside to the extent they exclude Russian athletes eligible under those criteria, and remain enforceable against those who do not satisfy them. ¶¶ 141–142; operative part ¶ 4
7. The requests to admit the individual athletes unconditionally (Claim IV) or as AIN (Claim V) are dismissed. Setting up and applying an AIN procedure to individual athletes falls within FIL's autonomy, and the Panel will not rule on their participation in FIL's place. ¶¶ 143–145

Procedural history

1. 7 April 2022The FIL Court of Arbitration sets aside the FIL Executive Board's March 2022 exclusion of Russian athletes as nationality-based discrimination.
2. 23 September 2022The FIL Executive Board adopts the Emergency Resolution under Article 4.5.8, suspending participation of RLF athletes and officials. Later Congresses confirm it in 2023 and 2024.
3. 18 June 2025The 73rd FIL Ordinary Congress in Tampere confirms the Emergency Resolution and rejects an AIN programme for Milano-Cortina 2026.
4. 8 July 2025The RLF and six athletes file a Statement of Appeal with CAS.
5. 21 July 2025The FIL President writes that the FIL wants CAS to hear the case directly and nominates Prof. Christoph Vedder. The suspension of the CAS proceedings is lifted the next day.
6. 18 September 2025Prof. Luigi Fumagalli is appointed President of the Panel. The Appellants challenge him on 19 September 2025.
7. 23 October 2025The ICAS Challenge Commission dismisses the challenge to Prof. Fumagalli.
8. 24 October 2025Hearing held by videoconference.
9. 31 October 2025Operative part of the award issued: the RLF's appeal is partially upheld.
10. 22 January 2026Reasoned award issued.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Luigi Fumagalli President, Panel (challenge by the Appellants dismissed by the ICAS Challenge Commission)
• Annett Rombach Co-arbitrator, Panel — appointed by the claimant
• Christoph Vedder Co-arbitrator, Panel — appointed by the respondent

For the claimant

Claude Ramoni · Ricardo Suescun

For the respondent

Christian Krähe · Thomas Summerer

Experts

Vincent Chetail (claimant) · Patricia Wiater (respondent)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• luge
• Russian athletes
• Individual Neutral Athletes
• AIN criteria
• Milano-Cortina 2026
• Olympic qualification
• eligibility
• Russia-Ukraine War
• nationality discrimination
• proportionality
• causal link
• Article 4.5.8 FIL Statutes
• exhaustion of internal remedies
• specific arbitration agreement
• standing to appeal
• association autonomy
• safety of competitions
• IOC recommendations

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