Oliver Koch Hansen v. Union Internationale Motonautique

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. Below is a summary of relevant facts arising from the Parties’ written submissions and the oral hearing that took place on 10 February 2026. Additional references to facts and contentions arising from the Parties’ written and oral submissions are made, where relevant, in the legal analysis that follows. While the Panel has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the Parties in the present proceedings, reference is made in this Award only to those matters necessary to explain the Panel’s reasoning and its decision.

A. Background Facts

5. On 3 August 2025, the Appellant participated in the Ski GP 1 class of the 2025 edition of the Aquabike Grand Prix of Hungary, held in Györ, Hungary (the “Competition”). The Competition formed part of, and was the penultimate grand prix of, the 2025 UIM Aquabike European Championship (the “European Championship”).

6. In Moto 3 (being the third race of the Competition, taking place after Motos 1 and 2) of the Competition (“Moto 3”), the Appellant (piloting boat no. 66) started the race from position 1 in the ‘Hole Shot 1’ starting lane. The ‘Hole Shot’ is the section of an Aquabike race-course between the starting pillar and the buoy marking the first turn.

7. The Appellant finished in first place in Moto 3, followed by Mr Quinten Bossche and Mr Mickael Poret in second and third place, respectively. However, after the conclusion of the race, in accordance with Rule 310.01.04 of the 2025 UIM Aquabike Rulebook (the “Rulebook”), a penalty of 25 seconds was imposed on both the Appellant and Mr Bossche for not having maintained their respective lanes in ‘Hole Shot 1’ for the requisite period after the start of the race, in violation of Rule 305.04 of the Rulebook.

8. As a result of such penalties:

- the Appellant was demoted from first place to second place in Moto 3. As such, the Appellant received 22 points (for second place), rather than 25 points (for first place);

- Mr Bossche was demoted from second place to third place in Moto 3. As such, Mr Bossche received 20 points (for third place), rather than 22 points (for second place); and

- Mr Poret was promoted from third place to first place in Moto 3. As such, Mr Poret received 25 points (for first place), rather than 20 points (for third place).

9. Notwithstanding his demotion in Moto 3, the Appellant finished in first place overall in the Competition (with 69 points out of a possible 75). However, as explained further below: (i) the points awarded for each race in the Competition (including Moto 3) count towards a rider’s overall standing in the European Championship; and (ii) as such, the Appellant’s demotion from first place to second place in Moto 3 resulted in him earning fewer points towards such standing (irrespective of his victory in the Competition itself).

10. The official results of Moto 3 were published at 18:00 on 3 August 2025.

11. Between 3-7 September 2025, the Appellant participated in the final grand prix of the European Championship, the Aquabike Grand Prix of Vichy, France. The Appellant finished in second place in the grand prix. Following the conclusion of the grand prix, the overall standings in the European Championship were finalised. Mr Poret finished in first place with 258 points, followed by the Appellant in second place with 256 points. Mr Poret therefore secured victory over the Appellant in the European Championship by a margin of two points.

B. The Protest

12. On 3 August 2025 at 18:31, the Appellant lodged a protest against the decision to impose a 25-second penalty upon him in Moto 3 (the “Protest”). The Appellant asserted that: (i) “the desired result of protest” was “[n]o penalty”; and (ii) his reason for protesting against the decision was that “I was maintaining my line”.

13. Later the same day, the “Protest Judge” appointed to determine the Protest rendered a decision rejecting the Protest (the “Protest Decision”). In the Protest Decision, the “Protest Judge” held that:

“After viewing the videos presented as evidence, as well as the footage from the organization’s drone, the decision is to keep the penalty imposed by the Race Direction.”

14. Later that evening (at 23:24), the Appellant filed a notice of his intention to appeal the Protest Decision (the “UIM Appeal Notice”). In the UIM Appeal Notice, the Appellant asserted, inter alia, that:

“On behalf of Oliver Koch Hansen (CC on this e-mail) and as team manager for Lindbergh Racing and Oliver, we hereby inform you that we want to make an appeal according to the art. 405 of the UIM rules […]:

• Penalty given – 25 second for not holding the lane (Same penalty was given to rider Quinten Bosche [sic] who according to his protest also confirms that Oliver had keept [sic] his line perfectly)

• Evidence – Official drone video from moto 3 of the race & Go Pro video from Oliver’s go pro camera shows clearly that there is absolutely no reason for any kind of penalty !

Detailed evidence material and arguments will be given to UIM one of the coming days together with the appeal of the Protest Judge Minutes & Decision No 8.

[...]

This wrong penalty decision has fortunately no influence on the podium ranking at the European Championship Grand Prix in Gyor/Hungary – However it might have big influence on who is going to bee [sic] European Champion after the GP in Vichy. By this wrong decision Oliver is now 10 points behind Morgan [sic] Poret otherwise the right difference will be only 2 points.”

15. On 4 August 2025, the Respondent wrote to the Appellant acknowledging receipt of the UIM Appeal Notice, setting out the relevant provisions of the Rulebook governing the appeals process, stating that the UIM International Court of Appeal (the “ICA”) was solely competent to hear and determine the appeal, and setting out the details of the bank account into which the Appellant was required to pay the requisite appeal fee.

C. The Proceedings before the UIM International Court of Appeal

16. On 5 August 2025, the Appellant filed his appeal brief in his appeal to the ICA (the “ICA Proceedings Appeal Brief”). In the ICA Proceedings Appeal Brief, the Appellant asserted, inter alia, that:

“The reason for the Appeal:

• Instead of a clear win in Moto 3, I was penalized with +25 second and instead ends [sic] up in second place, loosing [sic] 3 points.

• Fortunately this wrong penalty decision did not change that I got first place in the SKI GP1 in the Hungarian Grand Prix, European Championship round 3.

• However it makes a big difference in the overall standings in the overall European Championship. By penalizing me with + 25 seconds, I loose [sic] 3 crucial points and on top of that my main competitor for the European Championship title, Michal [sic] Poret #77 gets 3 extra points …. So totally I loose [sic] 6 points in the difference in the overall EC standings between Michael [sic] and me. So instead of being only 4 points behind Michael [sic] in the overall standings, I am now 10 points behind Michael [sic] – So this wrong penalty decision might bee [sic] crucial for who will be UIM European Champion in SKI GP1 in 2025 !

Arguments for you to accept my Appeal and delete the +25 seconds penalty:

1. On all of the enclosed 3 evidence video materials it is obvious that I make a perfect start and keep/maintain my lane 100% all the way to the hole shot buoy! […]”.

17. On 20 August 2025, the UIM filed its responsive brief in the ICA Proceedings (the “ICA Response Brief”). In the ICA Response Brief, the UIM rejected the arguments made by the Appellant in the ICA Appeal Brief and requested the ICA “not to upheld [sic] the appeal”. The crux of the UIM’s argument was that the official drone video footage demonstrated that the Appellant did not maintain his lane in ‘Hole Shot 1’ for the requisite period after the start of the race.

18. On 25 August 2025, the Appellant filed his reply brief in the ICA Proceedings (the “ICA Reply Brief”). In the ICA Reply Brief, the Appellant rejected the UIM’s case as set out in the ICA Response Brief. In particular, the Appellant asserted: (i) screenshots of the drone footage upon which the UIM relied were “incomplete and misleading”; (ii) the UIM (and the Protest Judge) had “misunderstood the correct geometry of the Hole Shot 1 start lane”; and (iii) the video and photographic (screenshot) evidence demonstrated that the Appellant had “maintained a straight course from the beach to the Hole Shot 1 buoy”.

19. On 12 September 2025, the ICA held an online hearing in which the Appellant and the UIM participated. At the conclusion of the hearing, the ICA issued the following procedural directions: “(i) the UIM Prosecutor is granted a period of seven (7) days from the date of this Order to file submissions to the new documents received by the Appellant

on August 26, 2025; (ii) The Appellant is further granted a further period of seven (7) days to file reply submissions in response to those of the UIM Prosecutor”.

20. On 19 September 2025, the UIM filed additional written submissions (the “UIM’s ICA Additional Submissions”). The crux of the argument set out in the UIM’s ICA Additional Submissions was that the Appellant’s “claim that he launched directly and in a straight line toward the Hole Shot 1 buoy is proven wrong by the video footage”.

21. On 26 September 2025, the Appellant filed additional written submissions in reply to the UIM’s ICA Additional Submissions (the “Appellant’s ICA Additional Submissions”). The crux of the argument set out in the Appellant’s ICA Additional Submissions was that “[t]he video evidences, Go Pro videos, and other evidence material in this case, shows from all angels [sic], that [the Appellant] is taking a direct, straight and parallel line, all the way from the start on the beach to the yellow hole shot buoy”.

22. On 1 October 2025, the ICA issued a “Verdict” rejecting the Appellant’s appeal.

23. On 31 October 2025, the ICA rendered its reasoned decision (the “Appealed Decision”). In the Appealed Decision, the ICA held, inter alia, that:

“7.6 The Panel finds that the relevant point here is the orientation of the path to the Hole Shot, not merely its linearity. The mere fact that a rider proceeds in a straight lane does not satisfy Rule 305.04.01, requiring riders to remain within and parallel to their designated lanes, until the marker buoy.

7.7 The Panel is persuaded that the Appellant’s trajectory, to the approach to the marker buoy, was not parallel to his designated lane with the Hole Shot 1 axis, as required by the UIM Rule, rather being slightly angled toward the right side of the chute.

7.8 The Panel has carefully considered the Appellant’s submissions on the inherent limits and distortions of measurements associated with drone cameras at different altitudes and from a perspective.

7.9 Nevertheless, the visual record remains probative: taking into account the drone footage, the perspective and the known geometry of the chute, the Panel observes a progressive reduction of usable space for fleet 1, including the Appellant, consistent with the Appellant’s rightward drift.

[…]

7.17 The Panel finds, thus, that the trajectory followed by the Rider was not in compliance with the UIM Rule 305.04.01.

7.18 For all these reasons, the Panel, after an in-depth scrutiny of the Appellant’s defenses on the dynamics of the facts, has no doubt on the occurred violation of such a Rule.”

24. The operative part of the Appealed Decision states as follows:

“The UIM International Court of Appeal, confirming the verdict of October 1, 2025, unanimously rules that:

(i) The sanction imposing a time penalty of 25 seconds on boat no. 66 in Moto 3 of the Grand Prix of Hungary of the 2025 UIM Aquabike European Championship, held in Györ, Hungary, on August 3, 2025, is to be confirmed and consequently,

(ii) the Appeal lodged by the above Appellant is unfounded and thus rejected, with all consequences on the final rankings of the said Championship.

(iii) The Appeal fee is definitely acquired by the UIM.

(iv) All other motions are dismissed.”

25. On the same day, the Appealed Decision was notified to the Appellant.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

26. On 6 November 2025, in accordance with Articles R47 et seq. of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) Code of Sports-related Arbitration (the “CAS Code”), the Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal before the CAS (the “Statement of Appeal”) against the Respondent with respect to the Appealed Decision. In the Statement of Appeal, the Appellant nominated Mr Jacob Christian Jørgensen as arbitrator.

27. On 11 November 2025, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties, inter alia: (i) notifying the Statement of Appeal and accompanying exhibits; and (ii) setting a time limit of 10 days (from receipt of the letter by courier) for the Respondent to nominate an arbitrator.

28. On 12 November 2025, the Respondent informed the CAS Court Office, inter alia, that it nominated Mr Mario Vigna as arbitrator.

29. On 14 November 2025, the Appellant filed his Appeal Brief (the “Appeal Brief”) in accordance with Article R51 of the CAS Code.

30. On the same day, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties acknowledging receipt of the Appeal Brief and, inter alia, invited the Respondent to file its Answer within twenty days of receipt of the CAS Court Office’s letter by email.

31. Still on the same day, the Respondent wrote to the CAS Court Office: (i) asserting that it appeared from the Appeal Brief that the Appellant was refusing to pay the costs of the arbitration; and (ii) requesting a suspension of the deadline to file its Answer until the Appellant confirmed “whether he intends to maintain his refusal to pay the arbitrationrelated costs […]”.

32. On 17 November 2025, the Appellant wrote to the CAS Court Office stating that he was not refusing to pay the arbitration costs, but that, in his view, Article R65 of the CAS Code applied. The Appellant requested that the CAS determine whether Article R64 or Article R65 of the CAS Code applied to the present arbitration and confirmed that, in the event that the CAS determined that Article R64 of the CAS Code applied, he was “prepared to bear the arbitration costs”. The Appellant concluded by stating that, in the circumstances, there was no reason to “suspend or extend UIM’s deadline for submitting an Answer”.

33. On 18 November 2025, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties: (i) informing the Parties that the Division President had decided to apply Article R64 of the CAS Code to these proceedings (on the basis that the Respondent is not an Olympic international federation); (ii) stating that the CAS Finance Director would write to the Parties regarding payment of an advance of costs; and (iii) stating that, pursuant to Article R55 of the CAS Code, the Respondent’s time limit to file its Answer was set aside and would be fixed once the Appellant had paid his share of the advance of costs.

34. On 27 November 2025, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties: (i) acknowledging receipt of the Appellant’s payment of his share of the advance of costs; and (ii) inviting the Respondent to submit its Answer within twenty days of receipt of the CAS Court Office’s letter by email.

35. On 28 November 2025, pursuant to Article R54 of the CAS Code and on behalf of the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division, the CAS Court Office confirmed the appointment of the Panel in the following composition:

President: Mr David Casserly SC, Barrister in Lausanne, Switzerland Arbitrators: Mr Jacob C. Jørgensen, Attorney-at-law in Birkerød, Denmark Mr Mario Vigna, Attorney-at-law in Rome, Italy

36. On 17 December 2025, the Respondent filed its Answer (the “Answer”) in accordance with Article R55 of the CAS Code.

37. On 18 December 2025, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties acknowledging receipt of the Answer. The CAS Court Office requested the Parties to confirm, by 9 January 2026, whether they preferred a hearing to be held in this matter (and, if so, their preferences as to format) and whether they requested a case management conference with the Panel. Further, the CAS Court Office stated:

“Unless the Parties agree or the President of the Panel orders otherwise on the basis of exceptional circumstances, Article R56 of the Code, provides that the Parties shall not be authorized to supplement or amend their requests or their argument, nor to produce new exhibits, nor to specify further evidence on which they intend to rely, after the submission of the Appeal Brief and of the Answer.”

38. On 23 December 2025, the Appellant sent a further written submission to the CAS Court Office.

39. On 29 December 2025, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties acknowledging receipt of the Appellant’s further written submission and confirming that such submission had not been shared with the Respondent or the Panel. The CAS Court Office invited the Appellant to file a letter by no later than 2 January 2026 setting out the reasons for his request to be authorised to supplement or amend his requests or his argument and to produce new exhibits. The CAS Court Office requested that the Appellant “refrain from including any substantive submissions in this letter” and confirmed that the Respondent would have an opportunity to respond to such letter before any decision was rendered by the Panel.

40. On 31 December 2025, the Appellant filed a “Request to file a supplementary submission” to be authorised to file further written submissions in response to the Respondent’s argument in its Answer on the Appellant’s alleged lack of interest in the present appeal (the “Request to File Supplementary Submissions”) along with permission to “amend [his] claim of relief in a supplementary submission”.

41. On 5 January 2026, the Appellant wrote to the CAS Court Office stating: (i) his preference that a hearing be held in this matter; and (ii) that he did not consider a case management conference to be necessary.

42. On the same day, the Respondent wrote to the CAS Court Office opposing the Appellant’s Request to File Supplementary Submissions (the “Response to Request to File Supplementary Submissions”). The Respondent, inter alia, requested that, in the event

the Appellant’s Request to File Supplementary Submissions was granted, the Respondent be permitted to file a reply to such submissions.

43. On 12 January 2026, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties setting out the Panel’s decision to:

- grant the Appellant’s Request to File Supplementary Submissions strictly limited to the issue of the Appellant’s alleged lack of interest in the appeal on the basis that “additional submissions on this issue shall constitute a useful procedural step to resolve this matter”, to be filed by 16 January 2026;

- grant, on the same basis, the Respondent’s subsidiary request to file a reply to the Appellant’s additional submissions, such reply submission also to be strictly limited to the issue of the Appellant’s alleged lack of interest in the appeal; and

- order the Appellant to expressly identify and substantiate, in his additional submission, the circumstances relied upon in support of his request to “amend [the Appellant’s] claim of relief accordingly in a supplementary submission” (and the Panel informed the Parties that any decision on such request was reserved and would be made at a later point in the proceedings).

44. On 14 January 2026, the Appellant filed additional written submissions (the “Appellant’s Additional Submissions”).

45. On 20 January 2026, the Respondent filed additional written submissions (the “Respondent’s Additional Submissions”).

46. On 3 February 2026 and 4 February 2026 respectively, the Appellant and the Respondent returned a signed copy of the Order of Procedure to the CAS Court Office.

47. On 10 February 2026, a virtual hearing took place. In addition to the Panel and the CAS Counsel, Mr Francisco Mateo Pavía, the following individuals attended the hearing:

For the Appellant:

- Mr Oliver Koch Hansen, the Appellant;

- Mr Ole Koch Hansen (the Appellant’s father);

- Mr Jens Hjortskov (Appellant’s legal counsel);

- Ms Emilie Nørgaard Larsen (Appellant’s legal counsel);

- Mr Kevin Reiterer (Appellant’s witness);

- Mr Lars Magne Drange (Appellant’s witness); and

- Mr Kerto Kase (Appellant’s witness).

For the Respondent:

- Mr Riccardo La Cognata (Respondent’s legal counsel);

- Mr Thomas Kurth (Respondent’s Secretary General);

- Mr Sebastiano Pellecchia (Respondent’s witness);

- Mr Luca Filiberti (Respondent’s witness); and

- Mr Marco Pietrini (Respondent’s witness).

48. At the outset of the hearing, the Parties confirmed that they had no objection as to the constitution of the Panel.

49. As a preliminary matter, the Panel invited the Parties to address the issue of whether Mr Poret ought to have been named as a respondent in the appeal (on the basis that, if the Appellant was successful in obtaining the relief he sought, such relief would have an impact on Mr Poret). The Parties addressed that question in the course of their oral and subsequent written submissions (see infra paras. 51, 53 and 54).

50. During the hearing, the Panel heard evidence from the above-mentioned party representatives and witnesses. Before taking their evidence, the Panel informed the witnesses of their duty to tell the truth, subject to the sanction of perjury under Swiss law. The Parties had the opportunity to examine and cross-examine the witnesses.

51. The Parties were each given a full opportunity to present their case, submit their arguments, question witnesses and experts, and answer questions from the Panel. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Panel informed the Parties that they would have the opportunity to file written submissions on the question of whether Mr Poret ought to have been included as a respondent and the consequences of his non-inclusion.

52. Finally, both Parties confirmed that they had no objections as to the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted.

53. On 12 February 2026, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties confirming that the Panel had set a time limit of 25 February 2026 for the Parties to file written submissions regarding the issue of the Appellant’s decision not to name Mr Poret as a respondent in the present proceedings. The Parties were also invited to confirm, by 13 February 2026,

whether the Panel may refer to video footage of what appeared to be the Moto 1 and Moto 2 races available on the YouTube website.

54. On 13 February 2026, both Parties confirmed that they had no objection to the Panel relying on the video footage of the Moto 1 and Moto 2 races available on YouTube.

55. On 25 February 2026, both Parties filed their post-hearing briefs on the issue referred to in the CAS Court Office letter dated 11 February 2026.

56. On 11 March 2026, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties stating that the Panel noted the Appellant’s statement in his post-hearing brief that he “would not oppose to – subject to Panel’s approval – that UIM and Oliver enter into a procedural agreement whereby Mickael Poret upon his request shall be entitled to join/intervene in the proceedings before CAS as a third party.” The CAS Court Office further informed the Parties that if they entered into such a “procedural agreement”, they should communicate such “procedural agreement” to the CAS Court Office by 18 March 2026.

57. On 17 March 2026: (i) the Appellant informed the CAS Court Office that he remained willing to enter into a “procedural agreement” on the participation of Mr Poret in these proceedings; (ii) the Respondent stated that it did not “intend to adhere to the Appellant’s proposal for a procedural agreement”; and (iii) the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties acknowledging that the Parties had not reached agreement regarding any procedural proposal.

IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

58. The following outline of the Parties’ submissions is illustrative only and does not necessarily comprise every submission advanced by the Parties. The Panel has nonetheless carefully considered all the submissions made and evidence presented by the Parties, whether or not there is a specific reference to them in the following summary.

A. The Appellant’s submissions

1. The non-inclusion of Mr Poret as a respondent

59. The Appellant submits that Rule 403 of the Rulebook prevented him from filing his Protest against the Respondent and Mr Poret. At the time of the Protest, the Appellant was in any event unable to identify which riders should be included in his Protest because the overall rankings of the European Championship were not final at the time of the Protest.

60. The same principles applied to the proceedings before the ICA. Rule 405 of the Rulebook sets out that “the rules for the protest procedure shall apply to the appeals procedure as well”. The procedural rules applicable to the appeal proceedings before the ICA lack any legal basis that required the Appellant to name Mr Poret as a party in his appeal against the rejection of his Protest. Instead, it was Mr Poret’s responsibility to file a request with the ICA to be included as a party in the proceedings before the ICA pursuant to Article 6(5) of the ICA Procedural Rules. Mr Poret failed to file such request. In addition, the Appealed Decision did not address the absence of Mr Poret in the proceedings before the ICA.

61. Rule 409 of the Rulebook (governing appeals to the CAS) does not require the Appellant to inform Mr Poret of any appeal of the Appealed Decision. Only parties to the proceedings before the ICA are required to be “notified of the arbitration procedure” and Mr Poret was not party to proceedings before the ICA. At no point was the Appellant “obligated to give third-party notice to Mr Poret” and “Mr Poret should not be a respondent in the proceedings before CAS”.

62. In addition, Mr Poret is not directly and significantly affected by the decision of the CAS in the present matter, despite the fact that he could lose his European Championship title. In the Appellant’s view, this follows from the fact that “[w]hen an athlete is disqualified or given a time penalty, this will, by its very nature, always benefit one or more competitors. It is normal practice in CAS proceedings for those competitors not to become parties to any subsequent appeal. They are not ‘directly and significantly’ affected.” Mr Poret is only indirectly affected by the time penalty imposed on the Appellant and the upholding of the appeal by the Panel would merely correct the “unjustified stripping of Oliver of his title.” Further and in any event, Mr Poret “must be assumed to have convergent and identical interest with” the Respondent and would not be in a position to further contribute (beyond the submissions made, and evidence presented by, the Respondent) to the determination of the case, i.e. the time penalty imposed on the Appellant.

63. In light of the above, the Appellant submits that he was not required to name Mr Poret as a respondent in the present matter.

2. The time penalty and its consequences

64. Rule 305.04 requires that, once a race has started, all riders must maintain their lane until the marker buoy placed on the start chute. What that requires in practice is that riders must keep “their relative position according to the starting grid, which allows for minor movements to one side or the other”. Given the nature of Aquabike racing, being that it takes place on water, it is impossible for riders to maintain an absolutely straight line. In this context, a rider’s “relative position should be understood as keeping the same order

among the other drivers without making sharp or unusual movements that could interfere with others” and, as such, Rule 305.04.01 “allows a certain margin for acceptable deviation from the line”.

65. The ICA was wrong to conclude that the wording of Rule 305.04 “admits no exception”, which conclusion “is incorrect and entirely contrary to what ‘maintaining the lane’ means according to clause 305.04”. A “tolerable amount” of movement is permitted as long as the rider “does not move from one position to another in a way that would represent a change in the overall starting order”.

66. After the start of Moto 3 in the Competition, the Appellant “maintained a direct and parallel line towards the Hole Shot 1 buoy, remaining within his relative position according to the starting grid”. Further, he “maintained a reasonable distance from the other riders” and “at no point did [the Appellant] obstruct or impede any other rider whatsoever”. That the Appellant did so is evidenced by official footage of Moto 3 captured by a drone, as well as screenshots taken from such footage, together with footage from the Appellant’s front and rear-facing Go Pro cameras and video footage from the opposite side of the lake from which the riders started Moto 3.

67. A deviation from the course taken by the Appellant immediately after the start of the race is “permitted as long as the rider maintains their relative position according to the starting grid”, and “[r]egardless of whether [the Appellant] deviated a few degrees to his right, he still maintained his lane”. One cannot expect a rider to “maintain perfect lane discipline at all times” given the circumstances of Aquabike racing (namely the “numerous unpredictable factors” including “varying water conditions, differences in race setup, and unexpected occurrences on the course”). It is “established racing practice” that the rider starting in pole position (the “polesitter”) is “afforded a certain degree of discretion in setting the initial course to the buoy”. The Appellant exercised such discretion appropriately “while maintaining a parallel lane”.

68. It is not possible to compare riders in the ‘Hole Shot 1’ and ‘Hole Shot 2’ starting lanes because, inter alia: (i) the “length of the starting lane for Hole Shot 1 is significantly shorter than that of Hole Shot 2” and, as such, the “width of the Hole Shot 1 fleet will be automatically less, as they are required to begin preparing for the turn at the yellow Hole Shot 1 buoy earlier”; (ii) the ‘Hole Shot 2’ lane is wider than the ‘Hole Shot 1’ lane “both at the beach start and immediately after”; and (iii) the “fleet in the Hole Shot 2 lane will naturally tend to spread wider, as riders may attempt outside passes at full speed prior to reaching the first split buoy”. In such circumstances, the width of the fleets in the ‘Hole Shot 1’ and ‘Hole Shot 2’ starting lanes differ and the Appellant cannot be held responsible for that.

69. In fact, it was other riders in the Moto 3 race that failed to maintain their lanes (namely the riders in lanes 3, 4 and 6). In such circumstances “[i]t appears that the Race Director, UIM Commissioner, and Protest Judge have made a mistake” and it is “unfair that [the Appellant] was penalised for an action for which other riders in the same moto should have been penalised instead”.

70. A comparison between the course taken by the Appellant at the start of Moto 3 and the courses taken by riders in the same position (i.e. in the “polesitter” position in the ‘Hole Shot 1’ starting lane) as the Appellant in Moto 1 and Moto 2 reveals that “[a]ll riders, including [the Appellant], followed the natural lane directly to the Hole Shot 1 buoy before making a sharp left turn towards the next buoy”. Further, the “polesitter” in the ‘Hole Shot 2’ starting lane in Moto 3 “followed precisely the same line” as the Appellant with each rider maintaining “a direct, straight and parallel lane from the beach start to the Hole Shot buoys”. Principles of “fairness and equal treatment in sports adjudication require consistency” and, as such, “[i]f identical racing lines in Moto 1, 2 and 3 were not penalised, then [the Appellant’s] action in Moto 3 should also not be sanctioned”.

71. In the Statement of Appeal, the Appellant made the following prayer for relief:

“Oliver Koch Hansen disagrees with the [Appealed Decision] and requests that the decision is tried before the CAS given that the decision is decisive for Oliver Koch Hansen’s overall ranking in the 2025 UIM Aquabike European Championship. In Oliver Koch Hansen’s opinion the time penalty of 25 seconds is not legitimate and unjustified and the decision has to be reversed.”

72. In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant made the following prayer for relief:

“For the reasons stated below, Oliver requests that CAS upholds the appeal and annuls the time penalty of 25 seconds imposed to Oliver in boat no. 66 in Moto 3 of the Grand Prix of Hungary of the 2025 UIM Aquabike European Championship.”

73. In his Additional Submissions, the Appellant made submissions as to why he ought to be permitted to amend the prayer for relief contained in Appeal Brief and set out the proposed amendments as follows:

“1. For the reasons stated in Oliver’s appeal brief and supplementary submission, Oliver requests that CAS upholds the appeal and annuls the time penalty of 25 seconds imposed to Oliver in boat no. 66 in Moto 3 of the Grand Prix of Hungary of the 2025 UIM Aquabike European Championship.

2. Oliver requests that CAS orders UIM to adjust the overall ranking in the 2025 UIM Aquabike European Championship Ski Division GP1 accordingly.

3. Oliver requests that CAS orders UIM to award the 2025 Aquabike European Championship title in Ski Division GP1 to Oliver.”

B. The Respondent’s submissions

1. The non-inclusion of Mr Poret as a respondent

74. The Respondent submits that the Appellant was required to name both the Respondent and Mr Poret as respondents in the present appeal procedure. If the Appellant’s appeal is upheld, Mr Poret would be deprived of his “legitimate title” (i.e. the European Championship title). Such consequences would “directly impact on Mr Poret”. In other words, the Appellant “aims to overturn the 2025 UIM Aquabike European Championship final ranking, which would result in taking away the title won by Mr. Poret on the race course and give it to the Appellant on the table, there cannot be any residual doubt on the fact that Mr. Poret is a ‘necessary’ party to these proceedings and was to be called to be part of the arbitration.”

75. The Appellant’s failure to name Mr Poret as a respondent in the present proceedings should result in the dismissal of the Appellant’s appeal in order to avoid “contradictory legal states for the omitted party”.

2. The time penalty and its consequences

76. Rule 305.04 of the Rulebook provides that “[i]t is a rider’s responsibility to maintain their lane until the designated marker buoy placed on the start chute”. The text of Rule 305.04 does not contemplate any exceptions. Rule 310.01.04 of the Rulebook provides for “a Stop-and-Go or equivalent time penalty” if a rider fails to maintain their lane.

77. The framework set out by the relevant rules “does not allow to consider any of the arguments brought forward by the Appellant, which are to be rejected”. An important underlying rationale of Rule 305.04 is the safety of riders. At the start of a race, “all the drivers start full steam ahead with to gain any possible advantage” and “[i]t goes without saying that such a situation constitutes the most dangerous in this kind of motorsport (in any motorsport, actually)”. Given such underlying rationale, there can be “no “flexibility” in interpreting the strictness of the rule imposing to maintain the given starting lane”. This was “well known” to the Appellant, who has previously received penalties for failing to maintain his lane.

78. The “key evidentiary element” in this case is the aerial video footage of Moto 3. Such video footage demonstrates that:

- the water conditions were flat and stable, such that it was not “difficult for riders to maintain their lines”;

- the Appellant does not appear to have been “disturbed” by other riders;

- the “Appellant’s trajectory, in approaching the marker buoy, was not parallel to his designated lane with the Hole Shot 1 axis, as required by the UIM Rule, rather being slightly angled toward the right side of the chute”; and

- there was a “progressive reduction of usable space for fleet 1, including the Appellant, consistent with the Appellant’s rightward drift” and “riders in positions P3 to P5 on the Appellant’s right-hand side experienced wakes and disturbed water to a greater extent than would be expected if the polesitter’s lane had been strictly parallel”.

79. The Appellant’s submissions “on the inherent limits and distortions of measurements associated with drone cameras at different altitudes, and from a different perspective are frankly meaningless”. The “visual record remains probative” and, in light of such evidence, the Appellant’s “infringement is not questionable, and the penalty given was hence righteous and fair”.

80. During the hearing, the Respondent further submitted that the decision to impose a 25- second time penalty against the Appellant is a so-called field-of-play decision. Therefore, the Panel is prevented from reviewing and interfering with such a decision.

81. In the Answer, the Respondent made the following prayers for relief:

“I) Preliminarily: To adjudge and declare that the Appellant’s claim lacks of interest and hence to reject the Appeal and uphold the Decision rendered by the UIM International Court of Appeal on the 31st October 2025.

II) Eventualiter, on the merits, to adjudge and declare that the Appellant’s claim is groundless and thus dismiss any Appellant’s motions and uphold the Decision rendered by the UIM International Court of Appeal on the 31st October 2025;

III) In any event, to order the Appellant to pay the costs of this arbitration and a contribution towards the Respondent’s legal fees and costs.”

VII. THE APPELLANT’S REQUEST TO AMEND HIS PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

96. On 31 December 2025, the Appellant filed his Request to File Supplementary Submissions (see supra para. 40), wherein he, inter alia, requested to amend his prayers for relief as follows:

“1. For the reasons stated in Oliver’s appeal brief and supplementary submissions, Oliver requests that CAS upholds the appeal and annuls the time penalty of 25 seconds imposed to Oliver in boat no. 66 in Moto 3 of the Grand Prix of Hungary of the 2025 UIM Aquabike European Championship.

2. Oliver requests that CAS orders UIM to adjust the overall ranking in the 2025 UIM Aquabike European Championship Ski Division GP1 accordingly.

3. Oliver requests that CAS orders UIM to award the 2025 Aquabike European Championship title in Ski Division GP 1 to Oliver.”

97. The Panel notes that Article R56(1) of the CAS Code provides, inter alia, that:

“Unless the parties agree otherwise or the President of the Panel orders otherwise on the basis of exceptional circumstances, the parties shall not be authorized to supplement or amend their requests or their argument, to produce new exhibits, or to specify further evidence on which they intend to rely after the submission of the appeal brief and of the answer.”

98. In the absence of an agreement between the Parties on the Appellant’s request to amend his submissions, particularly his prayers for relief, the Panel notes that, in principle, it may only admit such submissions on the basis of exceptional circumstances in accordance with Article R56(1) of the CAS Code. However, the Panel considers that it is only required to decide on the admission of the amended prayers for relief if such amended prayers were not already expressly or implicitly contained in the Appellant’s Statement of Appeal or Appeal Brief.

99. In this respect, the Panel notes that, according to para. 4.7 of the Appealed Decision, before the UIM ICA, the Appellant “request[ed] the ICA to annul the 25-second penalty,

to reinstate his result in Moto 3, and thereby correct the overall standings in the Championship” (see also supra para. 16).

100. Subsequently, in his Statement of Appeal before the CAS, the Appellant stated that the ICA had rejected his request “with all consequences on the final rankings of the [European] Championship” and that he “disagrees with the decision”, i.e. the Appealed Decision, “and requests that the decision is tried before CAS given that the decision is decisive for Oliver Koch Hansen’s overall ranking in the 2025 UIM Aquabike European Championship.”

101. Finally, in his Appeal Brief, the Appellant stated as follows:

“It is worth noting that the penalty decision did not affect the podium ranking at the Grand Prix of Hungary of the 2025 UIM Aquabike European Championship. However, the penalty presumably impacted which driver who became European Champion after the Grand Prix of Vichy, France, as [the Appellant] ended up 2 points behind Michael Poret in the overall standings.”

102. Although the Appellant’s use of the term “presumably” is less clear, the Panel concludes that, taking into account the context in which the Appeal Brief was submitted, the Appellant made clear the impact of his appeal being upheld (on the overall standings in the European Championship) in the Appeal Brief.

103. In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the Appellant’s requests relating to the change of the overall rankings of the 2025 UIM Aquabike European Championship were already at least implicitly included in his prayers for relief sought in the Statement of Appeal and Appeal Brief, noting that the latter was filed “in continuation of [his] statement of appeal”. Therefore, the Panel considers that it does not need to decide whether the amended prayers for relief submitted on 31 December 2025 could or should be admitted on the basis of exceptional circumstances pursuant to Article R56(1) of the CAS Code.