Tatiana Debien v. United World Wrestling (UWW), Comité International Olympique (CIO)

At a glance

Parties

Tatiana Debien (France) v. United World Wrestling (UWW) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC/CIO); interested parties: Fédération Française de Lutte et Disciplines Associées and the Comité National Olympique et Sportif Français (CNOSF)

Case no.

CAS JO 24/010 (CAS ad hoc Division, Olympic Games Paris 2024)

Forum and rules

CAS ad hoc Division; CAS Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games; Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter

Tribunal

Prof. Philippe Sands KC (President), Raphaëlle Favre Schnyder, Hamid Gharavi

Sector

Wrestling; Olympic eligibility and quota places

Outcome

Jurisdiction declined. Operative part issued on 2 August 2024; reasoned award dated 11 August 2024.

The dispute

Tatiana Debien is a French freestyle wrestler in the women's -53kg category. She did not qualify for the Paris 2024 Olympic Games under the qualification system of UWW and the IOC. She argued that the system had been distorted. Russian and Belarusian wrestlers, including Vanesa Kaladzinskaya, had earned ranking points as Individual Neutral Athletes and were only later declared ineligible by the IOC. The IOC then reallocated Kaladzinskaya's quota place to the German National Olympic Committee, not to France's CNOSF. On 23 July 2024 Debien asked the IOC and UWW for an additional quota place for France. The IOC replied on 27 July 2024 that, under Bye-law 2 to Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter, applying qualification criteria is a matter for the international federations and the National Olympic Committees (NOCs). UWW did not reply. Debien asked the ad hoc Division to annul the IOC's "decision" and to order an extra quota place for France, if necessary ex aequo et bono. The respondents argued that there was no decision that could be appealed, that the dispute fell outside the ad hoc Division's time limit, and that Debien had no standing.

Key holdings

1. The ad hoc Division has jurisdiction only if three conditions are all met: (i) the dispute is covered by Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter; (ii) it arises during the Games or in the ten days before the Opening Ceremony; and (iii) in appeals, internal remedies have been exhausted. ¶ 49
2. The dispute arose before the ten-day window. The quota rules dated from UWW's circular of 21 November 2023. The IOC's ineligibility decisions (15 June to 3 July 2024) and the reallocation of quota places (8 and 10 July 2024) should have been challenged no later than then, and Debien did not show that she had done so. ¶¶ 53–55
3. The IOC's email of 27 July 2024 is not a decision that can be appealed. It only stated that, under the Olympic Charter, applying qualification criteria is a matter for UWW and the CNOSF. ¶¶ 57–58, 60
4. UWW's silence is not a decision that brings the case within jurisdiction. UWW had already used its decision-making powers in November 2023 and in July 2024. An athlete cannot create jurisdiction by writing to a federation or the IOC about a matter that was, or could have been, decided earlier. ¶ 59
5. Obiter on standing: an athlete cannot claim a right to a quota place. Any such right belongs to the athlete's NOC. The CNOSF stated that it did not wish to support the request for the quota place. ¶¶ 62–64
6. The Panel has no power to change a clear qualification system that the IOC has approved in order to create a quota place. ¶ 65

Procedural history

1. 21 November 2023UWW circular sets out the Olympic qualification tournaments and the 2024 Ranking System.
2. 8 and 10 July 2024The IOC reallocates quota places previously held by Russian and Belarusian athletes, including Kaladzinskaya's place, which goes to Germany.
3. 23 July 2024Debien writes to the IOC and UWW asking for an additional quota place for France.
4. 27 July 2024The IOC replies that it cannot grant the request.
5. 29 July 2024Application filed with the CAS ad hoc Division. The same day, Carine Dupeyron is challenged and steps aside, and Hamid Gharavi is appointed in her place.
6. 1 August 2024The Panel decides to proceed without a hearing under Article 15(c) of the Rules.
7. 2 August 2024Operative part of the award issued: the ad hoc Division lacks jurisdiction.
8. 11 August 2024Reasoned award issued.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Philippe Sands President, CAS ad hoc Division — appointed by the institution
• Raphaëlle Favre Schnyder Co-arbitrator, CAS ad hoc Division — appointed by the institution
• Hamid G. Gharavi Co-arbitrator, CAS ad hoc Division — appointed by the institution (replaced Carine Dupeyron, who stepped aside after the claimant's challenge on 29 July 2024)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• CAS ad hoc Division
• Paris 2024
• Olympic Games
• wrestling
• quota place
• Olympic qualification
• Rule 61 Olympic Charter
• Rule 40 Olympic Charter
• ten-day window
• appealable decision
• standing
• Individual Neutral Athletes
• Russian and Belarusian athletes
• Kaladzinskaya
• CNOSF
• ex aequo et bono
• wildcard

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