Vladyslav Heraskevych v. International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF), International Olympic Committee (IOC)

At a glance

Parties

Vladyslav Heraskevych (Ukraine) v. International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF) and International Olympic Committee (IOC)

Case no.

CAS OG 26/009

Forum and rules

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Milano-Cortina 2026); CAS Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games

Treaty

None. The dispute arose under the Olympic Charter (Rules 40.2 and 61), the IOC Guidelines on Athlete Expression (Milano-Cortina 2026) and the IBSF rules.

Tribunal

Annett Rombach (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Sport (skeleton); Olympic eligibility; athlete expression

Outcome

Jurisdiction upheld; application dismissed. Operative part issued 13 February 2026, reasoned award 17 February 2026.

Amount

No monetary claims. No order as to costs: CAS ad hoc services are free and each party bears its own costs.

The dispute

Vladyslav Heraskevych, a Ukrainian skeleton athlete, wore a helmet showing images of Ukrainian athletes killed during Russia's invasion of Ukraine in official training at the 2026 Olympic Winter Games. The IOC told him that he could not compete in it under Rule 40.2 of the Olympic Charter and the IOC Guidelines on Athlete Expression. It offered him an exception to wear a plain black armband or ribbon. He announced publicly that he would wear the helmet in the race. On 11 February 2026 the IOC decided that he would not start wearing it, and on 12 February 2026 the IBSF Jury withdrew him from the starting list. He sought provisional reinstatement, annulment of the Jury decision and a declaration of eligibility. He argued that he had broken no rule, that commemoration is not political, that enforcement was selective and that exclusion was disproportionate. The IBSF objected that the decision was an unreviewable field-of-play decision. Both Respondents argued that the helmet was an expression of views prohibited on the field of play and that exclusion was the only way to prevent an announced breach.

Key holdings

1. CAS has jurisdiction. The IBSF Jury decision only implemented the IOC Decision, which was not a field-of-play decision. Issuing it at the venue shortly before the race did not make it one. During the Games, Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter takes precedence over IBSF rules. ¶¶ 55–57
2. Provisional measures were refused. The first two runs had already taken place when the application was filed, so the relief was not necessary to prevent irreparable harm. There was also no likelihood of success on the merits. Each reason was sufficient on its own. ¶¶ 64–67
3. Article 10 ECHR applies indirectly to market-dominant sports federations seated in Switzerland, such as the IOC. The field-of-play limit in the Expression Guidelines pursues a legitimate aim. It strikes a fair and reasonable balance because athletes keep wide opportunities to express views elsewhere at the Games. The Guidelines therefore comply with Article 10 ECHR. ¶¶ 84–94
4. Wearing the helmet in competition would have breached Rule 40.2 and the Expression Guidelines. Commemorating athletes killed in a war, together with the athlete's own statements that he wanted to raise awareness of Ukraine's situation, is political and is an "expression of a view". The decision rested on Rule 40.2, not on Rule 50.2. ¶¶ 81, 97–100
5. The withdrawal was not a disciplinary measure, because no breach had yet occurred. The IOC may still take pre-emptive measures against an imminent breach. This follows a fortiori from its power to sanction under Rule 59.2 of the Olympic Charter, and also from Article 69 of the Swiss Civil Code and Rule 19.3 of the Olympic Charter. Such measures can include exclusion from competition. The athlete should have challenged the IOC Decision rather than announcing that he would defy it. ¶¶ 102–109
6. Exclusion was proportionate. The breach was imminent, and no less intrusive measure was available. Letting him compete and sanctioning him afterwards is not a less intrusive option, because federations need not tolerate breaches. He could have raced in another helmet and challenged the prohibition later. Alleged inconsistent treatment of six other athletes has no bearing on this case. Withdrawing his accreditation had not been necessary. ¶¶ 111–118
7. No order as to costs: under Article 22 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules, the services of the ad hoc Division are free and each party pays its own costs. ¶¶ 120–122

Procedural history

1. 9 February 2026The athlete wore the helmet in official training. The IOC told his coach and the Ukrainian NOC that it was not compliant.
2. 10 February 2026IOC letter to the Ukrainian NOC Chef de Mission offering a black armband or ribbon. At a press conference the athlete announced that he would wear the helmet in competition.
3. 11 February 2026IOC Decision, signed by Denis Oswald on delegation from the IOC Executive Board: the athlete may not start wearing the helmet. At the equipment check he confirmed in writing that he would wear it.
4. 12 February 2026After a meeting with IOC President Kirsty Coventry, the IBSF Jury withdrew him from the starting list. The application to the CAS ad hoc Division was filed at 16:25, and the Sole Arbitrator was appointed the same evening.
5. 13 February 2026Provisional measures refused (00:12). Hybrid hearing held. Operative part of the award issued: jurisdiction upheld and application dismissed.
6. 17 February 2026Reasoned award issued.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Annett Rombach Sole arbitrator, CAS ad hoc Division

For the claimant

Yevhen Pronin

For the respondent

IOC (in-house) · Stephan Netzle · Antonio Rigozzi · Eolos Rigopoulos

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• freedom of expression
• Article 10 ECHR
• Rule 40.2 Olympic Charter
• IOC Guidelines on Athlete Expression
• field of play
• political neutrality
• pre-emptive measures
• proportionality
• competition ban
• eligibility
• provisional measures
• skeleton
• helmet
• Ukraine war
• Milano-Cortina 2026
• CAS ad hoc Division
• Rule 50 Olympic Charter

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