Vinesh Phogat's Case is Exceptional: Would it be able to Cross the Threshold of Temporal Jurisdiction?
It was initially reported that CAS will deliver "Award" (term used in the matters of arbitration) in the arbitration between Vinesh Phogat and United World Wrestling on 10th August 2024. Then, came news of "Award" to be delivered on 11th August 2024. Now, it is being reported about deferment and the new date being broadcast is 13th August 2024. The first date of delivery of decision i.e. 10th August 2024 was based on the "Media Release" on CAS website that mentions "The matter has been referred to the Hon. Dr Annabelle Bennett AC SC (AUS), sitting as a Sole Arbitrator, who will hold a hearing with the parties today. The Sole Arbitrator’s decision is expected to be issued before the end of the Olympic Games." The closing ceremony of the Paris Olympics has already commenced and yet there was a deferment instead of?decision. Why is Vinesh's case taking so much time??
According to the CAS rules the time limit for passing a decision is 24 hours. Art 18 of the "ARBITRATION RULES FOR THE OLYMPIC GAMES", which is the law book under which Vinesh's arbitration is being guided, mentions:
"Article 18 Time limit
The Panel shall give a decision within 24 hours of the lodging of the application. In exceptional cases, this time limit may be extended by the President of the ad hoc Division if circumstances so require."
Art 18 mandates a decision to be delivered within 24 hours of lodging of the application and hence decision in Vinesh case was due on 10th August 2024. However, the decision has been deferred twice, which proves that Vinesh's case is "exceptional." The Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games has not defined what is exceptional case. The synonyms of exceptional are, unusual, unique, rare, and uncommon. Vinesh's case is unique and rare. In absence of the details of the facts it is a challenge to exactly decipher which factual ingredients of Vinesh case are exceptional. However, on the basis of my previous article on the matter [refer Vinesh Phogat: Drawing a Case for a Silver Medal using Legal Principles of Contra Proferentum, Promissory Estoppel and Harmonious Construction | LinkedIn] in which I have dealt with "The International Wrestling Rules" of?United World Wrestling (UWW), it is evident that the rules of UWW are confusing, and the rules also contradict.
Art 18 on Time Limit provides authority to the President of the ad hoc Division to extend the time limit of 24 hour, but it does not mention the duration of extension. Is the President empowered to extend the time limit outside the Paris Olympics schedule?
The second factor that makes the matter exceptional is future consequences of the decision on the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Can the IOC afford to share the same type of medal? Interestingly, Art 56 of IOC's Olympic Charter does not put any bar on the number of medals to be awarded. Art 56 is as follows:
However, the final decision of awarding medals lies with the IOC. Even though there is no express bar on the total number of medals, sharing of medals has been mentioned in the cases of a tie. In Vinesh's case there is no tie.
领英推荐
Further, IOC Protocol elaborates and details Art 56.? As expected, there is no mention of a numerical bar on the medals in the protocol document. The last portion of the Chapter V of the Protocol mentions 25 extra sets of medals with IOC and therefore there would be no dearth of medals for the exceptional cases.
"The OCOG shall provide to the IOC, at the OCOG’s expense, twenty-five (25) sets of the
Olympic winners' medals (i.e. a total of 75 medals - 25 gold, 25 silver and 25 bronze)." [OCOG=Organising Committee of the Olympics Games]
The media release mentions Vinesh as an applicant and UWW as a respondent. It does not mention any other party. However, IOC has to be arrayed as a party in the arbitration. IOC has to be an Interested Party as IOC's interests would be affected by the decision of the CAS. In case the silver medal is awarded to Vinesh, the IOC has to arrange the silver medal along with the diploma and the IOC has to arrange a medal awarding ceremony according to Art 56 of the Olympic Charter. It is obvious that the IOC will oppose Vinesh's application. It adds to the complexity of the issue.
The next possible and most important issue is the jurisdiction of the Ad Hoc Division of the CAS because the application of Vinesh is being decided by the Ad Hoc Division. Art 1 of the Rules is on the jurisdiction. It mentions:
It is pertinent to mention that Ad Hoc DIvision of CAS has a temporal jurisdiction, and its life is fixed and the same has been mentioned in the Art 2 of the Rules:
Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Ad Hoc Division of CAS will end with the declaration of closure of the Paris Olympics. Would "Award" made on 13th August 2024 be implementable??
More litigation???....
Impact | Sustainable Development Goals | ICT4D
3 个月Reading this made me reflect on how to apply these lessons to my professional life: 1. Understand the rules (always read the fine print). 2. Definitions matter (whether designing interventions, working on policy, or implementing programs, they are never a waste of time). 3. Watch out for delays (in government, delays can stall initiatives to the point where they lose momentum). Thank you for sharing this. Learning about CAS and Vinesh's case, along with your insights, has provided me with valuable takeaways for work.
Director at Ottawa Community Loan Fund (OCLF)
3 个月She fought well and India should be proud of her (in fact whole world and sports fraternity) but lost on rules. Should we change the rule because we want her to get a medal? I don’t think this accommodation will add any glory to her (she already is glorious sportswoman). For statistical purpose, India will add to her medal tally but not the respect of fairness.