Irish Luge Federation (ILF) v. Fédération Internationale de Luge (FIL)

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

8. Set out below is a summary of the relevant facts based on the Parties’ submissions and evidence. While the Sole Arbitrator has considered all matters put forward by the Parties, reference is made in this Award only to those matters necessary to explain the Sole Arbitrator’s decision and reasoning.

9. On 1 July 2024, the pre-Olympic season began during which qualifying points for the 2026 OWG selection could be won. The pre-Olympic season closed on 30 June 2025.

10. On 1 July 2025, the Olympic season began and continued until 12 January 2026.

11. On 13 November 2025, the FIL published the final version of its Qualifying System for the 2026 OWG (the “QS”).

12. On 21 November 2025, the FIL (by its Executive Director) wrote to all of its members, including the ILF as follows:

“We would like to bring the following FIL Executive Board resolution to your attention:

On the basis of the “IOC Principles Relating to the Implementation of the Participation for AIN and their Support Personnel with a Russian Passport at the Olympic Winter Games Milano Cortina 2026”, dated 19 September 2025, and after intensive discussions within the independent FIL AIN Panel and between the AIN Panel and the IOC, and based on the conclusion of the independent FIL panel, the FIL Executive Board approves the eligibility of the athletes and support personnel proposed by the Russian Luge Federation to compete as AIN in the single‘s competitions except the athlete Semen Pavlichenko and the coach Sergei Chudinov.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/002 3

In its assessment, the Executive Board follows the independent FIL AIN panel´s and the IOC’s interpretation that the mandatory military service in Russia lasting one year is not sufficient for an exclusion.

You can find the list of the confirmed names of the AIN athletes eligible for competing in luge single´s competitions and their staff in the attachment of this e-mail”.

13. On 24-30 November 2025, an Olympic test event took place on the Olympic track in Cortina. The Athlete and the AINs took part.

14. Between 2 and 7 December 2025, the FIL hosted the 2025-26 FIL Luge World Cup in Winterberg, Germany. The AINs were unable to take part as a result of visa issues.

15. On 13 December 2025, the Athlete wrote to the FIL asking for clarification as to whether the FIL had decided to waive the minimum qualifying requirements for the AINs. The FIL (by Ms Claire DelNegro, FIL Vice President for Sport) responded the same day saying that “no qualification standards have been modified for AIN”.

16. On 25-26 December 2025, the Russian Luge Championships took place in Sochi, Russia. The AINs did not compete.

17. On 2 January 2026, the deadline passed for the AINs to request any extension to the qualifying period for meeting the FIL’s eligibility criteria.

18. On 5 January 2026, the ILF wrote to the FIL in the following terms:

“In the Olympic Qualifying rules it say [sic] that between 1st – 12th January athletes must participate in 2 races or 1 training week and 1 race. It is our submission that the [AINs] have not complied with this requirement. An exemption can only be given for injury and it would be highly unlikely that all their athletes were injured last week. We would like this lack of compliance with the qualification criteria formally noted”.

19. On the same day, i.e., 5 January 2026, the FIL (by Ms DelNegro) replied to the ILF as follows:

“[…] In my view, the FIL is in full compliance to date with all the Olympic Qualifying Criteria and I hope the explanation below helps you to understand in more detail.

As you know, Section C.2.2.2.2 includes the option for a request for extension of the qualification period to January 19th. The AIN Operations of the IOC have applied and have met all the criteria and required deadlines to apply for this extension “…due to concrete and FIL approved circumstances, i.e. injury,…”. The paragraph mentions injury as an example, not as the only circumstance that would allow for a request for extension of qualification period. The Review Panel has considered all the material presented and made its determination. For your information, the AIN are not the only group (country) who used the option to apply for this extension. The rules have been applied correctly across all requests.

Please note that the earning of points for the quota allocations is only through the Winterberg #2 race, ending January 12th. The extension to Jan. 19th, is for compliance only for the additional individual athlete qualifications per C.2.2.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/002 4

If you have further questions or concerns, please write formally to the FIL office so they may respond officially if you so require.

I sincerely wish your athlete all the best as she continues to pursue her qualifications”.

20. On 7 January 2026, the ILF replied to the FIL as follows:

“Thank you for your reply to our official note however one important fact was omitted which is “on what basis was the extension granted to the Russian/AIN athletes?”

The other nations referred to in your email we know have injury issues, so the case for an extension is clear. In relation to the AIN athletes the facts as we see then are

1. Sochi their home track was open so they were able to train there

2. China their second training track was also available for them to train

3. All the athletes were injury free and healthy to slide

4. All transportation was working properly over the Christmas period

5. There was uncertainty about visas but this did not prevent them training in Sochi or China

6. Any personal tragedy or issue would have only affected an athlete

Based on the above it would seem that the AIN athletes had every opportunity to stick with the original Olympic Selection Criteria but chose not to.

We would therefore be grateful if you could share the exceptional circumstances the Russian Federation presented which resulted in the extension being given. […]”.

21. Also on 7 January 2026, the FIL replied as follows:

“I am in receipt of your email, however there is not much more I can add beyond my email of January 5th”.

22. On 12 January 2026, the Athlete was ranked in 35th place in the overall ranking for the women’s singles event, having met all of the applicable eligibility criteria. All of the athletes above her in ranking had also met the eligibility criteria save for Ms Daria Olesik, an AIN in 23rd place.

23. On 11 January 2026, Ms Olesik completed an FIL World Cup event in Winterberg, Germany, thereby meeting the first eligibility requirements under Rule C.2.2.2.

24. On 16-18 January 2026, Ms Olesik completed an FIL World Cup event in Oberhof, Germany, thereby meeting the eligibility requirements under Rule C.2.2.2, and the FIL allocated an Olympic quota place to Ms Olesik.

25. On 22 January 2026, the ILF (by its solicitors) wrote to the FIL challenging the FIL’s decisions (a) to grant to an AIN an extension of time within which to meet the eligibility criteria set forth

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/002 5

in Rule C of the QS and (b) not to allocate the 106th quota place, despite the fact that only 105 athletes had been allocated places. The ILF went on to say as follows:

“[…] It is our client’s contention that both such decisions constitute clear and material breaches of the FIL Qualification System and the IOC Qualification System Principles, as well as of the fundamental principles of fair competition.

[…]

Next Steps

All athletes and National Federations are entitled to rely on the consistent and impartial application of the FIL Qualification System and have a legitimate expectation that they will be equally and consistently applied. The FIL's lack of transparency and failure to correctly apply the FIL Qualification System in this process undermines these fundamental principles. It threatens the integrity of the sport and entirely calls into question (i) the integrity of the Winter Olympics qualification process and (ii) the international governance of the sport of Luge.

You will appreciate that the concerns raised in this letter are severe, with equally severe implication. To address these serious concerns and avoid the ILF from pursuing further action against FIL, we require the following information and documentation as a matter of urgency:

1. Details of the concrete and FIL approved circumstance(s) relied upon by the FIL selected panel, that caused it to come to a decision to provide an extension to the AIN to meet the eligibility requirements of Article C.2.2.2, to include any documentation and evidence provided by the AIN in support of the special request.

2. Evidentiary proof that the AIN's special request was submitted prior to the deadline of 2 January 2026.

3. Full details of the FIL selected panel that considered the special request, including the names, qualifications and mandate of its members, along with a declaration of any potential conflicts of interest.

4. Any document that demonstrates how the decision was reached by the FIL selected panel, including any matters of fact that were considered by it over and above the information provided by the AIN. For the avoidance of doubt, this should include any document or material that outlines the deliberation of the special request and/ or comparison of other requests submitted by other athletes.

5. The legal and factual basis upon which the decision was taken not to allocate the 106th quota place.

Please provide a complete response no later than 4:00 p.m. GMT on Friday 24 January 2026.

Unless our client is satisfied by your response that there exists a lawful and justifiable basis for the decisions made by FIL in respect of (i) the extension granted to the AIN athlete and/or (ii) the allocation of the 106th quota place, our client will deem that FIL has acted in contravention of its mandate, the FIL Qualification System and the IOC Qualification System Principles.

As a result and in either circumstance, the ILF expressly reserves all of its rights, including but not limited to the right to initiate proceedings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (ad hoc division for the Olympic Games) pursuant to Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter, without further notice to FIL”.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/002 6

26. On 27 January 2026, the Olympic Federation of Ireland confirmed that were a place allocated to it for the women’s singles event it would award that place to the Athlete.

IV. THE CAS PROCEEDINGS

27. On 29 January 2026 at 14:37 (Milan time), the ILF filed an application with the CAS Ad Hoc Division against the FIL challenging the decision of the FIL “on or around 26 January 2026” (the “Application”).

28. On 29 January 2026 at 15:32 (Milan time), the President of the CAS Ad Hoc Division: (a) acknowledged receipt of the Application and notified the same to the FIL and the Interested Parties; and (b) informed the Parties that Mr James Drake KC, Barrister and Arbitrator in London, United Kingdom had been appointed as the Sole Arbitrator in this matter. There has been no objection to the appointment.

29. On 29 January 2026 at 18:48 (Milan time), the Sole Arbitrator issued the following procedural directions:

“1. The Panel of arbitrators is composed of: Mr James Drake KC, Barrister and Arbitrator in London, United Kingdom.

2. In accordance with Article 15 lit. b of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules, the Panel grants a deadline until 30 January 2026 at 14h00 (time of Milan) to the Respondent to file its reply to the Applicant’s application, if they deem necessary. Within the same deadline, the Interested Parties are entitled to file an amicus curiae brief if they wish to do so. Such submissions shall be filed by email at the following address: adhocdivision@tas-cas.org copying the email addresses listed above.

3. Pursuant to Article 15 lit. c para. 1 the CAS Ad Hoc Rules, the Panel will decide, upon receipt of the Respondent’s reply and the Interested Parties’ amicus curiae brief, whether to hold a hearing”.

30. On 30 January 2026 at 14:00 (Milan time):

a. The FIL filed its Response to the Application. In that Response, the FIL objected to the admissibility of the Application.

b. The IOC filed its Response to the Application. In that Response, the IOC objected to the jurisdiction of the CAS Ad Hoc Division to hear the Application.

31. On 30 January 2026 at 13:35 (Milan time), the Sole Arbitrator invited the ILF to “file its position on the issue of the jurisdiction of the CAS Ad Hoc Division by today at 18:00 (Milan time)” on 30 January 2026.

32. On 30 January 2026 at 18:00 (Milan time), the ILF filed its submissions in relation to jurisdiction.

33. On 30 January 2026 at 19:07 (Milan time), the Parties were informed that the Sole Arbitrator deemed himself to be sufficiently informed and had therefore decide not to hold a hearing.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/002 7

V. THE PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS

34. The Sole Arbitrator has carefully considered the written submissions of the Parties and sets out below the essential nature of the principal submissions advanced.

A. The Applicant

35. The ILF’s submissions may be summarised as follows.

36. The FIL was bound by the following obligations: (i) its commitment to the IOC under the OC and the IOC Qualifying Principles; (ii) its contractual agreement with the NOCs and their constituent national federations under the QS; (iii) its obligations to individual athletes, who had a reasonable expectation that it would uphold its own rules; and (iv) general rules of law which required it to act fairly, proportionately and in good faith when governing the sport of luge. The FIL violated each of these obligations.

37. The IOC has set out its Qualification System Principles, with which the FIL’s QS must comply. The FIL’s QS was also a contract between the NOCs and or the athletes hoping to qualify and the FIL; and even if not parties to that contract, the athletes had a legitimate expectation that the contract will be performed.

38. The FIL’s QS applies mechanistically: by competing in qualifying events within a prescribed timeframe eligible luge athletes are ranked by their performance; quota places are then allocated to NOCs by a formula based on where their athletes sit in the rankings; remaining places are then allocated to a further formula.

39. Section C of the QS governs ‘Athlete Eligibility’.

a. Rule C.2 sets out the Minimum Qualification Standard (“MQS”) and athletes who fail to meet the MQS are ineligible for selection.

b. Rule C.2.1 provides that athletes must either have completed and earned a certain number of points in certain events between 1 July 2024 and 12 January 2026 or have competed in two World Cup races and earned at least 26 (singles) points.

c. Rule C.2.2.1 and Rule C.2.2.2 provide that athletes outside the top 30 for Women’s Singles must meet two further eligibility criteria: (i) they must complete a minimum of 10 timed runs on the Olympic track between 1 July 2025 and 12 January 2026; and (ii) must either start two World Cup races or start one World Cup race and complete 20 training runs between 1 and 12 January 2026.

d. Rule C.2.2 provides a limited exception to these additional requirements for lowerranked athletes.

40. Section D of the QS governs “Qualification Pathway’. Rule D.1 specifies that there are 106 quota places to be allocated. Places are allocated to NOCs and are gender specific.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/002 8

41. In making the ‘Deprivation’, the FIL committed two errors in its application of the QS: first, it wrongly decided that the AINs fell within the limited exemption provided for by Rule C.2.2.2; and second, it wrongly failed to allocate the empty 106th place to the OFI, who would have allocated that place to the Athlete.

42. As to jurisdiction, the ILF made the following submissions:

a. Part G of the FIL QS confirms that the relevant date on which the Milano Cortina 2026 Sport Entries were to be submitted was 26 January 2026. As such, the relevant dispute did not arise before that time, when the FIL had not made the relevant decision under challenge. No decision has in fact been published or communicated to the ILF to date.

b. The fact that a provisional qualification list was settled on 12 January 2026 is not a sufficient basis to conclude that the dispute “arose” at that time. The FIL QS provides that a series of procedures will take place after the provisional qualification list (including the NOCs rejecting places and any reallocation occurring in accordance with the FIL QS if appropriate), such that the relevant decision under challenge is distinct from these earlier facts. In Clunis v Jamaica Athletics Administration Association, it was common ground between the parties that the Appealed Decision was rendered more than 10 days prior to the opening ceremony. Moreover, disputes under such qualification systems have been considered by CAS Ad Hoc panels without any issue concerning jurisdiction on this basis.

c. In any event, such an interpretation of the rules would confuse the crystallisation’ of the dispute with the point at which it arises. The Ad Hoc Panel in Clunis referred to a dispute not arising “when all steps to resolve the dispute have failed”. That is not the point in time relied upon by the Applicant here – in fact the dispute had only commenced upon the final entries being submitted to the IOC for the 2026 OWG. The dispute had not therefore “arisen” until the 10-day period commenced.

43. The relief sought by the ILF was as follows:

“95. The ILF invites the Panel to make the following award:

95.1 A declaration that the Deprivation was contrary to the FIL QS and/or the IOC QP and/or the OC;

95.2 An order that the FIL allocate the 105th place currently allocated to the AIN to the ILF or alternatively that the FIL allocate the 106th place for the 2026 Winter Games to the OFI to enter an athlete into the Women’s Singles Luge; and

95.3 An order that the IOC re-open registration and make any other necessary provision, so that §§95.1- 95.2 may have effect”.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/002 9

B. The Respondent

44. The FIL made the following submissions:

a. The Application was “inadmissible”. Article 1 of the CAS AD Hoc Rules requires that the dispute must have arisen no earlier than 10 days prior to the Opening Ceremony. Since that ceremony takes place on 6 February 2026, then the dispute must have arisen no earlier than 27 January 2026. Here, the ILF’s lawyers complained on 22 January 2026 and even the Application refers to the challenge of a decision by the FIL on 26 January 2026.

b. The Application lacks merit. On the proper application of the QS the AINs were not exempted from any qualification requirements and the 106th place is not available to be allocated. This is due to the fact that the Austrian luger Wolfgang Kindl is competing in the singles and doubles disciplines, meaning that the maximum number of 106 starting places set by the IOC for the luge competitions organised by the FIL has been reduced by one place.

45. The FIL requested relief as follows: “We therefore request that the court dismiss the claim”.

C. The IOC

46. The IOC made four submissions:

a. The CAS AD Hoc Division has no jurisdiction ratione temporis to accept and hear the Application. The test is when the dispute arose not when it crystallised. The dispute here arose prior to the jurisdictional window, i.e., before 27 January 2026. It was clear on or around 12 January 2026 that the FIL allocated Ms Olesik a provisional place for the 2026 OWG instead of the Athlete. Even if the relevant time is when the dispute crystallised, the Sole Arbitrator would still lack jurisdiction because the dispute crystallised at the latest when Ms Olesik completed the eligibility criteria on 16-18 January 2026 leading FIL to allocate the Olympic quota place to Ms Olesik.

b. The ILF lacks standing to sue. According to Section B.3 of the FIL QS, quotas for the Olympic Games are allocated to the NOCs and not to an athlete or to the National Federation. Moreover, under the Olympic Charter, the NOC has the exclusive right to “send competitors, officials and other team personnel to the Olympic Games in accordance with the Olympic Charter”. An athlete lacks sufficient legal interest to obtain a change in the allocation of the quota place from one NOC to another or to order an additional quota for her NOC This principle apply a fortiori to the athlete’s National Federation.

c. The Sole Arbitrator has no power to order the relief sought.

d. The merits of this matter concern the application of the QS and is thus a matter for the FIL.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/002 10

47. The IOC sought the following relief:

“In light of the foregoing, the IOC respectfully submits that the Sole Arbitrator should decline jurisdiction over the Application and, in any event, dismiss the Application to the extent it is admissible”.