Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

Raimo Reinsalu v. International Skating Union (ISU)

Case summary

At a glance

Parties
Raimo Reinsalu (figure skating coach and ISU Technical Specialist) v. International Skating Union (ISU); interested parties: Lithuanian Olympic Committee, Meda Variakojytė, International Olympic Committee
Case no.
CAS OG 26/008 (CAS ad hoc Division, OG Milano-Cortina 2026)
Forum and rules
CAS ad hoc Division; CAS Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games; Chapter 12 Swiss PILA; seat Lausanne
Tribunal
Prof. Stefano Bastianon (President), Ms Marianne Saroli, Dr Isabelle Fellrath
Sector
Figure skating; safeguarding; disciplinary (abuse allegations)
Outcome
Application dismissed and the ISU Disciplinary Commission's decision of 8 February 2026 upholding the coach's provisional suspension confirmed (12 February 2026).
Amount
No financial claims. No order as to costs: the ad hoc Division's services are free, and each party bears its own costs.

The dispute

Raimo Reinsalu, a coach preparing the Lithuanian figure skater Meda Variakojytė for the Milano-Cortina 2026 Olympic Winter Games, was accused by a Latvian skater, Ms X, of physical, psychological and emotional abuse between 2020 and May 2024, when she was a minor. The ISU brought a complaint under Articles 3 and 6.1 of the ISU Code of Ethics. The ISU Disciplinary Commission provisionally suspended him from all ISU activities, including the Olympic Games, by Order No. 1 of 7 February 2026, and refused to revoke the suspension on 8 February 2026. Reinsalu argued that the suspension was in substance a sanction, had no factual basis as regards his own athlete, breached the presumption of innocence and his right to be heard, and was timed to cause irreversible harm. The ISU objected to jurisdiction because the suspension was not a final decision and the dispute arose in September 2025; on the merits it relied on the seriousness of the allegations and the protection of athletes.

Key holdings

  1. Jurisdiction upheld. The dispute is connected with the Olympic Games and arose during them, because the Appealed Decision was rendered during the Games; it does not matter that the underlying facts arose earlier. No further internal remedy was available, and it is irrelevant whether the decision is interim or final under the ISU's internal rules. ¶¶ 45–51
  2. A provisional suspension is a precautionary and protective measure, not a disciplinary sanction. Its protective rationale carries particular weight where a coach, who holds a position of authority over athletes, faces allegations of abuse. ¶¶ 62–64
  3. At this preliminary stage the Panel asks only whether the decision had a sufficient prima facie basis, pursued a legitimate aim and was reasonable and proportionate. Governing bodies have a margin of discretion in adopting preventive measures. Given the seriousness of the allegations, the coach's position of trust and the protective function of the Code of Ethics, the suspension was reasonable, necessary and proportionate. ¶¶ 67–70
  4. In the proportionality test, indirect effects on third parties, such as the coach's athletes, are relevant but cannot override the interest in protecting participants where serious abuse allegations are raised. Ms Variakojytė would also have an accredited coach at the Games. ¶¶ 65–66, 72
  5. The presumption of innocence is not engaged. A provisional suspension needs more than speculation, but a "reasonable possibility" that the violation was committed is enough, and there is no finding of guilt. ¶ 71
  6. No breach of due process. The coach was able to contest the suspension through his urgent application for revocation. The Commission did not reverse the burden of proof on whether he caused Ms X's psychiatric condition. Any procedural defects can be cured in the pending merits proceedings or on appeal to the CAS ordinary division. The request for a stay is therefore devoid of purpose. ¶¶ 74–75
  7. No order as to costs: under Article 22 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules the Division's services are free, and the parties pay their own legal costs. ¶¶ 76–78

Procedural history

  1. 15 July 2025ISU Safeguarding receives Ms X's complaint of abuse by her former coach. The ISU then engages Sportradar AG to investigate.
  2. 6 February 2026The ISU files a Statement of Complaint with the ISU Disciplinary Commission under Articles 3 and 6.1 of the ISU Code of Ethics and requests a provisional suspension.
  3. 7 February 2026Order No. 1 of the ISU Disciplinary Commission provisionally suspends Reinsalu from all ISU activities, including the Olympic Games. He applies urgently for revocation the same day.
  4. 8 February 2026The ISU Disciplinary Commission dismisses the urgent application and upholds the suspension (the Appealed Decision).
  5. 9 February 2026The Lithuanian Olympic Committee cancels Reinsalu's accreditation. Reinsalu files his Application with the CAS ad hoc Division, and the Panel is constituted.
  6. 11 February 2026Hearing at the CAS ad hoc Division office in Milan.
  7. 12 February 2026Award: Application dismissed and the ISU decision of 8 February 2026 upheld.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by
For the claimant
Jānis Jurkāns · Olavs Cers
For the respondent
ISU (in-house)
For other participants
Antonio Rigozzi

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

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

Case ID
CAS OG 26/008
Claimant
Raimo Reinsalu
Respondent
International Skating Union (ISU)

Procedure: Ad hoc
Sport: Skating
Matter: Disciplinary (except doping)
Outcome: Dismissed
Panel: Stefano Bastianon, Isabelle Fellrath, Marianne Saroli
Source: Court of Arbitration for Sport case database.