Raimo Reinsalu v. International Skating Union (ISU)

II. FACTS

4. Below is a summary of the relevant facts and allegations based on the Parties’ written and oral submissions, pleadings and evidence adduced during these proceedings including at the hearing held on 11 February 2026. Additional facts and allegations may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion that follows. While the Panel has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments, and evidence submitted by the Parties in the present proceedings, it refers in its Award only to the submissions and evidence it considers necessary to explain its reasoning.

A. Background facts

5. On 15 July 2025, the ISU Safeguarding received a complaint from a female Latvian figure skater, Ms X (identity known to the Panel, but deliberately redacted), alleging prolonged physical, psychological, and emotional abuse by her former coach, the Applicant, and his wife.

6. Following an initial interview on 17 July 2025, the ISU engaged Sportradar AG to conduct investigations into the allegations.

7. On 22 September 2025 and 7 October 2025, the Applicant submitted written responses to the ISU categorically denying all allegations. The Applicant characterized Ms X as a difficult athlete with documented mental health issues and asserted that any disciplinary measures taken were professionally appropriate responses to behavioral problems.

8. On 27 December 2025, Ms X submitted a signed witness statement to the ISU detailing her allegations and stating that she had been diagnosed with C-PTSD and Borderline Personality Disorder and had been hospitalized for psychiatric treatment from August to October 2025.

9. On 26 January 2026, Sportradar reported that Ms X had informed them that a criminal investigation had been initiated by Latvian police. On 3 February 2026, the ISU allegedly received confirmation from the Latvian and Lithuanian Olympic Committees that police investigations had been launched in Latvia.

10. On 2 February 2026, the Applicant submitted a further statement denying all allegations and disputing the existence of criminal proceedings against him in Latvia.

11. On or about 6 February 2026, the ISU submitted a Statement of Complaint against the Applicant to the ISU Disciplinary Commission alleging violations of Articles 3 and 6.1 of the ISU Code of Ethics and requesting provisional suspension from all ISU activities, including the OWG 2026.

12. As of 6 February 2026, the ISU initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant on the basis of the alleged harassment and physical as well as psychological abuse committed by the

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/008 4

Applicant against a Latvian figure skater, Ms X, who was a minor at the relevant time, from 2020 until May 2024.

13. By Order No. 1, dated 7 February 2026, the ISU Disciplinary Commission inter alia provisionally suspended the Applicant “from participation in all ISU activities and events including the skating events at the Milano-Cortina Olympic Winter Games from 7 February 2026 until the final decision […]” (ground 5, original emphasis).

14. On 7 February 2026, the Applicant filed an urgent application for revocation of the provisional suspension with the ISU Disciplinary Commission.

15. On 8 February 2026, the ISU filed a statement of reply requesting the ISU Disciplinary Commission to dismiss the Applicant’s urgent application for revocation of provisional suspension.

16. On 8 February 2026, the Applicant filed a reply to ISU’s statement of reply requesting the ISU Disciplinary Commission, inter alia, to (a) grant the urgent application; (b) revoke the provisional disqualification imposed on 7 February 2026 concerning the provisional disqualification from participation in the Milano-Cortina 2026 Olympic Winter Games; and (c) allow Mr Reinsalu to participate in the Olympic Games in the capacity in which he was delegated, pending a final decision on the merits of the disciplinary proceedings.

17. By decision dated 8 February 2026 (the “Appealed Decision”), the ISU Disciplinary Commission, inter alia, dismissed the Applicant’s urgent application and upheld the provisional suspension. In finding against the Applicant, the ISU Disciplinary Committee argued that (a) the provisional suspension “is considered to be necessary due to the seriousness of the allegations, whilst respecting the Alleged Offender’s presumption of innocence and right to be heard (…)”; and (b) the Winter Olympic Games “are the pinnacle event for participants, and the protection and safety of the participating athletes is of the highest priority. The DC has taken urgent provisional measures, being the provisional suspension of Mr Reinsalu as necessary due to potential risk to the athletes following these serious allegations against Mr Reinsalu. The principle of proportionality is respected”.

18. On 9 February 2026, the Lithuanian Olympic Committee cancelled the Applicant’s accreditation.

III. THE CAS PROCEEDINGS

19. On 9 February 2026, at 7:32 (time of Milan) the Applicant filed an Application with the CAS ad Hoc Division against the Respondent to challenge the Appealed Decision, mentioning the Lithuanian Olympic Committee, Ms Meda Variakojytė as interested parties. The IOC is also an interested party to this procedure.

20. On 9 February 2026, the CAS Ad Hoc Division notified the Application to the Respondent, to the interested parties and to the IOC.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/008 5

21. On 9 February 2026, the CAS Ad Hoc Division notified the Parties of composition of the Arbitral Tribunal:

President: Prof. Stefano Bastianon, Professor of Law in Bergamo, Italy, and Attorney-atlaw in Busto Arsizio, Italy

Arbitrators: Ms Marianne Saroli, Attorney-at-law in Montreal, Canada

Dr Isabelle Fellrath, Attorney-at-law in Morges, Switzerland

22. On 9 February 2026, the CAS Ad Hoc Division invited the Respondent to file its Reply to the Applicant’s Application by 10 February 2026, at 17:00 (time of Milan) and informed the interested parties that they were entitled to file an Amicus curiae brief within the same time limit. The CAS Ad Hoc Division further summoned the Parties to appear before the Panel of the CAS Ad Hoc Division on 11 February 2026 at 14:00 (time of Milan).

23. On 9 February 2026, the Applicant filed a “Submission on the addition of evidence” arguing that: (a) “Mr Reinsalu, through his legal counsel, Mr Olavs Cers, sent on 8 February 2026 at 12:46 (CET), that is several hours before the ISU Disciplinary Commission adopted its decision on the same day, a signed submission entitled ‘Reply to ISU Statement of Reply as to Mr Reinsalu’s Urgent Application for Revocation of Provisional Suspension’”; (b) “this submission was transmitted to the ISU Disciplinary Commission and the ISU legal Department and was sent to all relevant and available e-mail addresses of the ISU involved in the proceedings”; (c) nevertheless, “by email dated 9 February 2026, at 09:16 (CET), Mr Michael Geislinger, ISU Legal Advisor, expressly confirmed that this submission was not taken into account by the ISU Disciplinary Commission, asserting that it allegedly arrived after the decision had been taken and that it was considered ‘unsolicited’”.

24. Accordingly, the Applicant submits that this position is factually incorrect and legally untenable, as the submission was sent several hours before the decision was adopted and within an ongoing procedure in which the ISU itself had been allowed to file a reply. Therefore, “disregarding the Applicant’s submission on purely formal grounds in such circumstances constitutes a clear breach of the right to be heard and of the principle of equality of arms”.

25. On 10 February 2026, the Respondent filed its Reply.

26. On 10 February 2026, Ms Meda Variakojytė filed her observations as Interested Party.

27. On 10 February 2026, the IOC filed its Amicus Curiae brief as Interested Party.

28. On 11 February 2026 at 14:00 (time of Milan), a hearing was held at the office of the CAS ad hoc Division in Milan, Italy, with the participation of the following persons, in addition to the Panel, Mr Antonio de Quesada, Head of Arbitration of the CAS and Mr Andrés Redondo, CAS Counsel:

For the Applicant:

- Mr Raimo Reinsalu (via videoconference)

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/008 6

- Mr Jānis Jurkāns – Counsel (via videoconference)

For the Respondent:

- Ms Susan Petricevic - Chair of the ISU Disciplinary Commission (in person)

- Mr Tiago Luduvig - General Counsel (in person)

- Mr Michael Geistlinger - ISU Legal Advisor (in person)

For the IOC:

- Mr Antonio Rigozzi – Counsel (in person)

For Ms Meda Variakojytė:

- Mr Vaidas Variakojis – Father of Ms Meda Variakojytė (via videoconference), assisted by a translator

29. At the hearing, the Parties confirmed that they had no objections to the composition of the Panel. Each Party was afforded the opportunity to present its arguments on the merits of the case.

30. Before the hearing was concluded, the Parties expressly stated that they did not have any objection to the procedure adopted and how the proceeding was conducted by the Panel and confirmed that their right to be heard and to be treated equally was respected.

IV. THE PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS AND REQUESTS FOR RELIEF — A. The Appellant

31. In his Application, the Applicant requested the following reliefs:

“1) Annul the Decision of the ISU Disciplinary Commission dated 8 February 2026 insofar as it maintains the provisional suspension in relation to the Milano-Cortina 2026 Olympic Winter Games;

2) Order the immediate lifting of the provisional suspension with respect to Mr Raimo Reinsalu’s participation in the Milano-Cortina 2026 Olympic Winter Games;

3) Grant any other relief the Panel deems appropriate to safeguard the Applicant’s rights”.

32. Moreover, the Applicant requested, as “extremely urgent interim relief”, a stay of the Appealed Decision.

33. In supporting his requests for relief, the Applicant relied on the following main arguments:

(a) Mr Reinsalu categorically denies all allegations raised against him.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/008 7

(b) Notwithstanding the absence of any determination on the merits and before the Applicant has been afforded a genuine opportunity to present his defence, the ISU has created an exceptionally dangerous and irreversible situation by imposing a provisional suspension at the very moment of the Olympic Games.

(c) The timing of the Appealed Decision, adopted after the opening of the Games, when Mr Reinsalu had already been designated as part of the Lithuanian delegation, deprived the Lithuanian Olympic Team and Ms Meda Variakojytė of the support of her long-standing coach at the most critical moment of her sporting career, causing significant stress and emotional pressure on the athlete.

(d) There is no factual basis for the assumption that the Applicant poses any risk to Ms Meda Variakojytė. Moreover, the athlete has publicly expressed her support for the Applicant and both the athlete, and her father have explicitly informed the Lithuanian Olympic Committee that they have no objection to his presence at the Olympic Games or to his role in supporting her during the competition.

(e) The Appealed Decision violates fundamental principles of due process and the presumption of innocence in so far as it requires the Applicant to prove that the psychiatric condition of Ms X was not caused by the Applicant’s alleged conduct, thereby unlawfully shifting the burden of proof on the Applicant.

(f) The imposed restrictive measure cannot be regarded as a genuine provisional protective measure. In substance, it constitutes a sanction given that it deprives the Applicant of participation in a unique and non-repeatable Olympic event and produces irreversible consequences that cannot be remedied even in the event of full exoneration.

(g) If the provisional suspension is not stayed, the arbitration proceedings before the CAS Ad Hoc Division will be rendered ineffective, as the Olympic games will proceed and conclude before any meaningful relief can be granted.

B. The Respondent

34. In its Reply, the Respondent requested the following reliefs:

“To dismiss the Application of Mr Reinsalu, including any and all Supplements”.

35. In supporting its requests for relief, the Respondent relied on the following main arguments:

(a) CAS has no jurisdiction to decide on the Applicant’s Application, given that the provisional suspension imposed by the ISU Disciplinary Commission is not a dispute and it did not arise in the relevant timeframe. In particular, the Respondent submits that (i) in the case at hand there is a dispute concerning the imposition of the provisional suspension; (ii) the dispute arose on 22 September 2025 when the Applicant sent an email to the ISU General Counsel “in connection with the complaint submitted by the Latvian skater Ms X against me personally and our club Kristal Ice”; (iii) the dispute is a disagreement on point of facts and the whole period until

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/008 8

submission of a Statement of Complaint to the ISU Disciplinary Commission is to be seen as effort to establish the true facts.

(b) Moreover, the Respondent argues that the provisional suspension cannot be considered as a dispute allowing the jurisdiction of CAS, given that:

(i) according to Article 40(1) of the ISU Constitution CAS is competent to hear appeals against final decisions passed by the ISU and its bodies;

(ii) pursuant to Article 16(1) of the ISU Disciplinary Procedures a “Final Decision” is defined as follows:

“1) The proceedings before the DC shall be considered terminated:

a) when the DC issues an Order of Termination according to Article 1 Hereof;

b) when the DC Chair dismisses the matter according to Article 1 hereof;

c) when the Complaint is withdrawn by the Claimant or the ISU and the other party agrees with the withdrawal; or

d) when the Panel issues its Final Decision based on the merits of the Complaint”:

(iii) the decision of the ISU Disciplinary Commission on provisional suspension does not terminate the proceedings which remain ongoing and, therefore, it cannot be considered as Final Decision pursuant to Article 16(1) of the ISU Disciplinary Procedures.

(c) The ISU would have suffered irreparable harm if the provisional suspension of the Applicant had not been granted. According to CAS jurisprudence, irreparable harm means “substantial harm or risks that would be impossible to remedy at a later stage” (see OG 22/008 & 009 & 010, at para. 207 with reference to earlier decisions). Any abuse cannot be remedied, it violates the psyche of a person and remains throughout their life. The ISU is responsible for its skaters and its sport: it cannot tolerate any danger of harassment or abuse in violation of its Code of Ethics. The credibility of the ISU and its principles of good governance would be irreparably damaged.

(d) The ISU has been cautious in collecting evidence and verifying statements and media reports so that a solid basis could be established which enables a success on the merits. It is more likely than not that the ISU will be successful on such merits - the fact that the ISU Disciplinary Commission upheld its decision irrespective of the Applicant’s request for revocation strengthens the likelihood of the ISU’s success on the merits.

(e) The ISU balanced the interests of the ISU against those of Mr Reinsalu and his skater. The ISU Disciplinary Commission allowed for a review of its decision and thus, gave the Appellant the chance of using a remedy which is neither foreseen by the ISU Constitution 2025 nor by the ISU Disciplinary Procedures. Even, if there are also allegations against Ms Kovalkova, the

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/008 9

wife of Mr Reinsalu, the ISU abstained from submitting a Statement of Complaint against her prior to the Milano – Cortina 2026 Olympics Winter Games in the interests of the two skaters. Since Ms Kovalkova has been listed as coach for both skaters, any possible adverse effect on the two skaters could be avoided (Mr Kuliss) or minimised (Ms Variakojytė). The ISU has been informed by the Lithuanian Olympic Committee that a person from the Lithuanian Skating Federation (Figure) will be with the skater at the Olympic Games and will take care of her. She has an effective chance for fair and equal treatment with other skaters. Thus, also in her case the interest of the ISU to avoid any case of harassment and abuse outweighs the interests of the skater.

(f) The substitution of Mr Reinsalu’s coaching by a member of the Lithuanian Figure Skating Federation means that he would not be visible in Milan. Good results of his skater(s) will be his merits even if he was not present in person at the Olympic Games. His reputation and career will not suffer from the fact that he did not participate at the Olympic Games. Thus, in his case, too, the ISU’s interests creating a safe environment for his skater and other skaters outweighs his interests in participating at the Olympic Games.

(g) The Applicant’s argument alleging a violation of the right to a fair hearing and to be heard is unfounded. In particular:

(i) the ISU informed the Latvian Skating Federation on the start of its investigations and asked its president to maintain confidentiality;

(ii) irrespective of this request, the Applicant soon thereafter provided the ISU with his view of the facts and his arguments;

(iii) the ISU did not hide these unsolicited statements and explanations of the Applicant from the Disciplinary Commission nor from the CAS Panel, but included them in full into the ISU’s Statement of Complaint and its Reply to CAS;

(iv) when dealing with the ISU’s request for imposition of a provisional suspension the Disciplinary Commission also had the counterarguments and defence of the Applicant at its disposal and for its consideration. Thus, all arguments and defence of the Applicant, as brought forward, could and have been considered. The Applicant has been heard, he has been dealt with fairly and with due respect of his procedural rights. If there are any procedural issues, quod non, there is the chance that they will be cured by the CAS proceedings;

(v) the misfortune that the Applicant’s Reply to the ISU’s Reply because of a system failure did not reach the ISU Disciplinary Commission early enough for consideration did not create any damage to Mr Reinsalu. The arguments as to the skater had been considered by the ISU before their submission.

C. Ms Meda Variakojytė

36. In his written submissions filed on behalf of Ms Meda Variakojytė, her father Mr Vaidas Variakojis requested “the interests of the athlete be duly taken into account” and that “that Meda

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/008 10

Variakojytė be allowed to compete at the Milano-Cortina 2026 Olympic Winter Games together with her coach, Mr Raimo Reinsalu – the person she trusts, with whom she has worked for many years, and who constitutes an integral part of her sporting development and Olympic preparation”.

37. In supporting his requests for relief, Mr Vaidas Variakojis relied on the following main arguments:

(a) The Appealed Decision is manifestly disproportionate and effectively directed against Ms Meda Variakojytė, depriving her of the possibility to prepare for and compete in the most important event of her sporting career under fair and normal conditions.

(b) Meda Variakojytė has been training at the Kristal Ice sports club under the guidance of Mr Raimo Reinsalu since 2019, that is, since the age of twelve. Throughout all these years, I have personally supported her sporting career: I took her to training sessions, observed the training process, travelled with her to competitions and remained in constant contact with both my daughter and her coach. For the vast majority of this time, Meda was trained directly by Mr Reinsalu, who invested an extraordinary amount of professional effort and personal commitment to enable her to qualify for the Olympic Games.

(c) Meda Variakojytė has always been under my close supervision, and we maintain open and trusting communication. She speaks to me freely about her experiences, emotions and challenges in sport. If there had ever been any form of violence, inappropriate behaviour or misconduct by Mr Reinsalu, I would certainly have been aware of it, and any cooperation with him would have been immediately terminated. No such situation has ever occurred.

(d) Due to the unlawful decision of the ISU Disciplinary Commission, the preparation process for the Milano-Cortina 2026 Olympic Winter Games has been severely disrupted, making it impossible for Meda Variakojytė to continue her training in a proper and effective manner.

(e) Most importantly, preparing for the Olympic Games without the presence of her longstanding coach causes Meda Variakojytė significant psychological distress. This situation endangers not only her sporting preparation, but also her mental well-being at the most critical moment of her career.

D. The IOC

38. In its Amicus Curiae brief, the IOC observed that, notwithstanding the Applicant bases the CAS jurisdiction in the arbitration clause inserted in the official entry form for the Olympic Games, the case file does not contain any such entry form signed by the Applicant.

39. However, the IOC acknowledges that on 20 October 2025 the Applicant did sign the “Conditions of Participation for NOC Delegation Members” for the Milano-Cortina 2026 Olympic Winter Games containing a CAS arbitration clause.

40. On the merits, the IOC made no submission, given that “the present matter concerns a decision taken by the ISU Disciplinary Commission to provisionally suspend the Applicant following disciplinary proceedings initiated by the ISU and, as such, is a matter between the Applicant and the ISU”.

CAS ad hoc Division OG 26/008 11