TAS - CAS 5868 de 2018

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2018/A/5868 Pan-American Team Handball Federation (PATHF) v. International Handball Federation (IHF), award of 10 May 2019

Panel: Prof. Martin Schimke (Germany), Sole Arbitrator

Handball Governance Extent of the authority of res judicata Review of a Division President’s decision regarding CAS jurisdiction Time limit to supplement or change requests for relief under Article R56 CAS Code Consequences of revocation of delegated decision-making power Reallocation by CAS of costs of previous instances

1. The authority of res judicata is, in principle, only attached to the operative part of the award. However, in order to properly understand the scope of the principle and the effect of the operative part of the award, one also needs to look into the reasoning leading to the findings. This does not only apply to arbitral awards, but also to an order by means of which proceedings are terminated in a final and binding way, be it entirely or partially.

2. Whereas a prima facie ruling of the Division President that CAS has jurisdiction is subject to review by the arbitral tribunal, a ruling by the Division President that CAS has clearly no jurisdiction is final and binding and terminates the arbitration procedure, be it entirely or partially. This is because an arbitral tribunal is not an appeal instance of the Division President.

3. The consequences of filing an Appeal Brief are clearly set out in Article R56 of the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration (“CAS Code”). This provision is to be interpreted in the sense that an appellant can, in principle, not supplement or change its requests for relief after the filing of the Appeal Brief. To find otherwise i.e. that the requests for relief can still be amended until the respondent filed its Answer or until the expiration of the time limit within which an appellant could have filed its Appeal Brief, would unjustifiably favour an appellant over a respondent, as the respondent should know against which requests for relief it should defend itself when the Appeal Brief is filed.

On the basis of Article R56 CAS Code, there are two reasons to permit an alteration of the requests for relief after the filing of the Appeal Brief: i) permission from the other parties; and ii) exceptional circumstances.

4. In case a body of an association delegates its authority to render a decision to another body of the association and that delegation is later on declared null and void, any decision(s) rendered by the body originally having obtained delegated decision-making power is not automatically inexistent as a consequence of the fact that the delegation CAS 2018/A/5868 2

PATHF v. IHF, award of 10 May 2019 was declared null and void. This is only the case after the decision(s) in question has/have been declared null and void by a court or when the decision(s) is/are formally revoked by the competent body. Consequently, an appeal filed in respect of the decision in question is not moot and a party may have an interest in having the decision annulled by CAS, and to have it declared null and void.

5. In principle, it is not for the CAS to reallocate the costs of the proceedings before the previous instances. However, this may be different when the relevant rules and regulations provide otherwise.

I. PARTIES

1. The Pan-American Team Handball Federation (the “Appellant” or the “PATHF”) is the continental confederation responsible for governing the sport of handball in Pan-America and is affiliated to the International Handball Federation. The PATHF has its registered office in

Buenos Aires, Argentina.

2. The International Handball Federation (the “Respondent” or the “IHF”) is the international sports federation responsible for governing the sport of handball worldwide. The IHF has its registered office in Basel, Switzerland.

II. INTRODUCTION

3. The present proceedings relate to three separate but related issues, all stemming from a series of decisions rendered by the IHF Council on 14 January 2018.

4. First of all, they relate to the legality of the decision rendered by the IHF Council to divide the PATHF into two confederations, namely a “North America and the Caribbean Handball Confederation” and a “South and Central America Handball Confederation”, following a decision issued by the IHF Congress to delegate such decision-making authority to the IHF Council, while the latter decision has been declared null and void by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) in the proceedings CAS 2018/A/5745 PATHF v. IHF (i.e. the “Implementation Decision”).

5. Second, the proceedings relate to the decision rendered by the IHF Council to suspend the PATHF (i.e. the “Suspension Decision”).

6. Third, in case the PATHF’s appeal is successful, the PATHF seeks compensation from the IHF for the costs incurred related to the proceedings before the IHF Arbitration Commission and the IHF Arbitration Tribunal that had to be exhausted in order for the PATHF to commence the present appeal arbitration proceedings before CAS.

CAS 2018/A/5868 3

PATHF v. IHF, award of 10 May 2019

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7. Below is a summary of the main relevant facts, as established on the basis of the parties’ written submissions and the evidence examined in the course of the present appeals arbitration proceedings and at the hearing. This background is made for the sole purpose of providing a synopsis of the matter in dispute. Additional facts may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal analysis.

8. On 18 August 2017, an IHF Council meeting was held in Tbilisi, Georgia (the “Tbilisi Council Meeting”), during which the IHF President presented a motion to divide the PATHF into two confederations (the “Motion”).

9. On 7 October 2017, a PATHF Extraordinary Assembly was held in Bogotá, Colombia, to discuss, inter alia, the Motion to split the PATHF.

10. On 11 October 2017, the PATHF informed the IHF of the PATHF Extraordinary Assembly held on 7 October 2017.

11. On 23 October 2017, the IHF President wrote to the PATHF alleging that it had not followed the stipulations in Article 10.2.3.1 IHF Statutes, by not inviting the IHF President. The IHF President requested the PATHF to “urgently provide us with complete information on the formal convocation procedures of the PATHF Extraordinary Congress in order to file the case with the IHF Arbitration Commission, aiming to receive necessary guidelines for further proceedings”. The IHF President also requested “supporting administrative and financial documents which prove the correct spending of the awarded sponsorship” in the amount of USD 1,000,000 awarded by the IHF to the PATHF in

2014.

12. On 26 October 2017, the PATHF President replied to the IHF’s letter dated 23 October 2017, maintaining that the convocation procedure of the PATHF Extraordinary Assembly was correct and that “we see no injury that may entail the intervention of the Arbitration Commission”. Finally, the PATHF President indicated that the accounting for the sponsorship money was made during the PATHF Congress held in Buenos Aires on 30 July 2016, which financial statements were unanimously approved by the members present.

13. On 3 November 2017, the IHF President replied to the PATHF’s letter dated 26 October 2017, reiterating that the PATHF Extraordinary Assembly was not convened in compliance with Article 10.2.3.1 IHF Statutes, and that the PATHF auditing report which was confirmed by the PATHF Extraordinary Assembly was not on the agenda, as a consequence of which the corresponding decision is not valid either. The IHF President reiterated his request for supporting administrative and financial documents proving the correct spending of the awarded sponsorship.

14. On 9 November 2017, an IHF Council meeting took place in Antalya, Turkey (the “Antalya

Council Meeting”), where it was decided that the PATHF’s alleged violation of the IHF Statutes would be submitted to the IHF Arbitration Commission in order to obtain their recommendation for further treatment by the IHF Executive Committee and the IHF Council.

CAS 2018/A/5868 4

PATHF v. IHF, award of 10 May 2019

15. On 10 November 2017, the PATHF President apologised for the formal omission of an IHF invitation to attend the PATHF Extraordinary Assembly, indicating that it was an involuntary omission that in no way aimed at “injuring” IHF regulations and that it was simply an administrative error.

16. On 11 November 2017, the IHF Congress took place in Antalya, Turkey, where the IHF Congress decided to “delegate its authority to the IHF Council to discuss, evaluate and take a decision on the motion regarding the IHF Statutes related to the Pan-American continent and consequently on the relevant IHF Statutes changes” (the “Congress Decision”).

17. On 7 December 2017, the PATHF filed an appeal with the IHF Arbitration Commission, requesting that the Congress Decision be declared null and void.

18. On 14 January 2018, an IHF Council meeting was held in Zagreb, Croatia (the “Zagreb Council Meeting”). Without providing any prior information to the PATHF, the IHF President requested that the IHF Managing Director read-out the recommendation received on the same day (i.e. 14 January 2018) from the IHF Arbitration Commission regarding the PATHF’s alleged violation of the IHF Statutes. The following decisions were taken by the IHF Council (the “Council Decision”): ➢ Following a legal opinion issued by the Arbitration Commission, which reads, inter alia, as follows as reflected in the Zagreb Council Meeting Minutes: “On October 7th, 2017, Pan-American Team Handball Federation held the Extraordinary Congress in Bogota, subject of

which were motions to be presented in the Congress regarding the previously presented modification of the Pan-American Team Handball Federation structure. The agenda was obviously to gain member federations votes to oppose the announced reorganisation, for the President of the IHF was not invited to the Extraordinary Congress to articulate the reorganisation. This move by the Pan-American Team Handball Federation constitutes a direct violation of the Continental Confederations prescribed duties. […]. Therefore the recommendation of the Arbitration Commission is that the IHF Council should suspend the Pan-American Team Handball Federation”. Following a discussion, the IHF Council agreed (Votes in favour: 15; Votes against: 1; Abstentions: 0) to suspend the PATHF according to Article 10.2.3.2 IHF Statutes. ➢ Following a legal opinion issued by Dr François Carrard, concluding that “[a]ll Council members without any limitation shall be authorized to vote on the issue of the so-called “motion of the Pan-America” and that the Congress decision does not violate Swiss Law nor the IHF Statutes” and following a discussion, the IHF Council agreed (Votes in favour: 15; Votes against: 1; Abstentions: 0) “to divide the continent of Pan-America into two as follows: o North America and the Caribbean Handball Confederation (“North”): Full members: ANT, BAH, BAR, CAN, CAY, CUB, DMA, DOM, GRL, GRN, HAI, IVB, JAM, LCA, MEX, PUR, SKN, TRI, USA –total of 19 countries plus two regional members: GLP, MTQ CAS 2018/A/5868 5 PATHF v. IHF, award of 10 May 2019 o South and Central America Handball Confederation (“South”): Full members: ARG, BIZ, BOL, BRA, CHI, COL, CRC, ECU, ESA, GUA, GUY, HON, NCA, PAN, PAR, PER, URU, VEN – total of 18 countries plus one regional member: GUF

Consequently and according to the authorisation of the Congress, the revised Article 10.2.2 of the IHF Statutes will be as follows: The IHF shall recognise only the following six confederations which shall decide on their corporate denomination and inform the IHF thereupon: a. African Handball Confederation b. Asian Handball Confederation c. European Handball Confederation d. Oceania Handball Confederation e. North America and the Caribbean Handball Confederation f. South and Central America Handball Confederation” (emphasis in original).

19. On 17 January 2018, the IHF President informed the PATHF of the Council Decision and asked the PATHF to “stop with immediate effect spending any PATHF funds whatsoever and provide us with the current bank account statement” and reiterated his request to “send immediately to the IHF Head Office the relevant expenses documentations which prove the correct spending of the allocated IHF sponsorship to the amount of USD 1,000,000, aiming to further develop handball throughout the continent”.

20. On 18 January 2018, the IHF President informed the IHF Member Federations of the Council

Decision.

21. On 25 January 2018, the IHF President informed the PATHF President as follows: “Referring to our communication dated 17 January 2018 regarding the [Council Decision], we have been informed about your plans to organise meetings in Pan-America on 9/10 February 2018. In this context, I would like to draw your attention to the following:

1. You are not entitled to act as President of [PATHF] due to the fact that the whole organisation has been suspended according to the [Council Decision].

2. You are not entitled to call for a meeting without coordination with the IHF according to Article 10.3, point n of the IHF Statutes.

3. You are not entitled to spend any PATHF funds as from the date of the IHF communication related

to the [Council Decision]. […]”.

CAS 2018/A/5868 6

PATHF v. IHF, award of 10 May 2019

22. On 9 February 2018, the IHF President informed, inter alia, the IHF Member Federations and Confederations that the statutory amendments in relation to the division of the PATHF into two confederations would be effective and in force from 11 February 2018.

23. On 13 February 2018, the PATHF was provided with the minutes of the Zagreb Council

Meeting.

24. On 14 February 2018, the IHF Arbitration Commission issued its decision, following the appeal filed by the PATHF on 7 December 2017 against the Congress Decision, with the following operative part: “The appeal filed by [PATHF], represented by its president Mr Mario Moccia, on 14 December 2017 is rejected”1.

25. On 6 March 2018, the PATHF filed an appeal with the IHF Arbitration Tribunal against the IHF Arbitration Commission’s decision issued on 14 February 2018.

26. On 14 March 2018, the PATHF filed a new appeal with the IHF Arbitration Commission, this time against the Council Decision, with, inter alia, the following requests for relief: “I. The appeal against the decision issued on 14 January 2018 by the IHF Council in Zagreb, Croatia, implementing the challenged decision taken on 11 November 2017 at the XXXVI IHF Ordinary Congress, is upheld.

II. The decision issued on 14 January 2018 by IHF Council in Zagreb, Croatia, implementing the challenged decision taken on 11 November 2017 at the XXXVI IHF Ordinary Congress, is null, respectively annulled.

[…]”.

27. On 17 April 2018, the PATHF lodged an appeal with CAS on the basis of a denial of justice by

the IHF in respect of the proceedings pending before the IHF Arbitration Tribunal regarding the Congress Decision. These proceedings were referenced by CAS as CAS 2018/A/5685 PanAmerican Team Handball Federation (PATHF) v. International Handball Federation (IHF). The PATHF ultimately withdrew this appeal.

28. On 1 May 2018, the IHF Arbitration Tribunal rendered its decision regarding the Congress Decision, with the following operative part: “The Appeal filed by the Pan-American Team Handball Federation (“PATHF”), represented by its President Mario Moccia, and which was filed on 6 March 2018 against the Decision of the Arbitration Commission of the International Handball Federation dated 14 February 2018 is dismissed”. 1 It appears to the Sole Arbitrator that the reference to 14 December 2017 is a typographic mistake, as it appears that the appeal was filed on 7 December 2017. This difference is in any event not material.

CAS 2018/A/5868 7

PATHF v. IHF, award of 10 May 2019

29. On 4 May 2018, the grounds of the decision of the IHF Arbitration Tribunal rendered on 1

May 2018 were communicated to the PATHF.

30. On 14 May 2018, the IHF Arbitration Commission rendered its decision on the appeal filed by the PATHF against the Council Decision, with the following operative part: “The appeal filed by Pan-American Team Handball Federation (“PATHF”), represented by Libra Law SA, Attorneys-at-Law, Lausanne, Switzerland, on 14 March 2018 is rejected”.

31. On 15 May 2018, the PATHF filed an appeal with CAS against the decision issued by the IHF Arbitration Tribunal on 1 May 2018 related to the Congress Decision (CAS 2018/A/5745

PATHF v. IHF).

32. On 13 June 2018, the PATHF filed an appeal with the IHF Arbitration Tribunal against the

IHF Arbitration Commission’s decision dismissing the PATHF’s appeal against the Council Decision, submitting, inter alia, the following requests for relief: “I. The appeal against the IHF Arbitration Commission’s decision issued on 14 May 2018 is upheld.

II. The decision issued on 14 January 2018 by IHF Council in Zagreb, Croatia, implementing the Challenged Decision taken on 11 November 2017 at the XXXVI IHF Ordinary Congress, is null, respectively annulled.

[…]”.

33. On 13 August 2018, the IHF Arbitration Tribunal rendered its decision (the “Appealed Decision”) regarding the Council Decision, with the following operative part: “The Appeal filed by Pan-American Team Handball Federation (“PATHF”), represented by Libra Law SA, Attorneys-at-Law, Lausanne, Switzerland, on 13 June 2018 against the Decision of the Arbitration Commission of the International Handball Federation dated 14 May 2018 is dismissed”.

34. On 13 September 2018, CAS issued the operative part of its arbitral award in the proceedings referenced as CAS 2018/A/5745 PATHF v. IHF related to the Congress Decision. The operative part, inter alia, determines the following: “1. The appeal filed on 15 May 2018 by the Pan-American Team Handball Federation against the decision issued on 1 May 2018 by the Arbitration Tribunal of the International Handball Federation is partially upheld.

2. The decision issued on 1 May 2018 by the Arbitration Tribunal of the International Handball Federation is annulled.

3. The decision of the Congress of the International Handball Federation of 11 November 2017 to delegate its authority to the Council of the International Handball Federation to discuss, evaluate and take a decision on the motion regarding the IHF Statutes related to the Pan-American continent and consequently on the relevant IHF Statutes changes is declared null and void.

CAS 2018/A/5868 8

PATHF v. IHF, award of 10 May 2019 […]”.

35. On 14 September 2018, the IHF issued a press release determining as follows: “The [IHF], which is the governance body of handball, is maintaining its position to develop handball in the two continents of North America and the Caribbean Handball Confederation (NACHC) and South and Central America Handball Confederation (SCAHC). The project of a recognition of two separate Continental Confederations by the next IHF Congress remains absolutely in force and will be implemented forthwith in the best interest of handball worldwide.

According to Article 19.1.1 of the IHF Statutes, the IHF is the original owner of all the rights emanating from competitions (World Championships and Olympic Handball Tournaments including all relevant qualifications, etc.). Hence, the IHF is maintaining its position to organise future qualification championships in NACHC and SCAHC. The Pan-American Team Handball Federation (PATHF) was suspended by the IHF Council in its meeting in Zagreb, Croatia on 14 January 2018 according to Article 11.2.3.2 of the IHF Statutes. Consequently, the IHF Council, in its meeting of 14 January 2018, decided on the two working groups for NACHC as well as SCAHC, which are currently not only managing the continental affairs but also drafting the statutes and regulations (which shall include the World Championship qualification championships) for both NACHC and SCAHC. The IHF intends to continue the progress achieved in the two continents until now with the help of the National Federations of both continents. The planned handball development programme for the two continents will be maintained. The decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) shall be on the agenda of the next IHF Council meeting taking place in Doha, Qatar on 18 October 2018”.

36. On 26 October 2018, the grounds of the arbitral award in the proceedings referenced as CAS

2018/A/5745 PATHF v. IHF related to the Congress Decision were communicated to the parties.

IV. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

37. On 17 August 2018, the PATHF lodged an appeal with CAS against the Appealed Decision, pursuant to Article R48 of the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration (edition 2017) (the “CAS Code”), naming the IHF as the sole respondent. The PATHF designated its Statement of Appeal as its Appeal Brief, pursuant to Article R51 CAS Code. The PATHF requested that the present appeal proceedings be consolidated together with the proceedings referenced as CAS 2018/A/5745 PATHF v. IHF; that expedited proceedings be implemented: or, alternatively, that the present appeal proceedings be stayed. The PATHF’s submission also contained a request for the IHF to produce evidence.

38. On 21 August 2018, following an enquiry from the CAS Court Office in this regard, the PATHF agreed that the present appeal proceedings would be referred to the same Panel as in CAS 2018/A/5745 PATHF v. IHF.

39. On 23 August 2018, following an enquiry from the CAS Court Office in this regard, the IHF indicated that it did not object to the present appeal proceedings being referred to the same CAS 2018/A/5868 9

PATHF v. IHF, award of 10 May 2019 Panel as in CAS 2018/A/5745 PATHF v. IHF, whereas it objected to an expedited procedure being implemented. The IHF further indicated that it shared the PATHF’s view that “the outcome in the matter CAS 2018/A/5745 will necessarily determine the outcome in the present appeal” and that it did therefore not object to the present appeal proceedings being suspended, pending the issuance of the final award in CAS 2018/A/5745 PATHF v. IHF.

40. Also on 23 August 2018, the CAS Court Office informed the parties that, due to the IHF’s

objection, no expedited procedure would be implemented. Furthermore, following the IHF’s agreement, the present appeal proceedings were suspended.

41. On 26 September 2018, the PATHF filed a “supplementary Appeal Brief” and an application for provisional measures.

42. On 1 October 2018, following an invitation in this regard from the CAS Court Office, the IHF objected to the admissibility of the “supplementary Appeal Brief” as well as to the amended prayers for relief. The IHF further indicated that “as the decision of the IHF Congress, which was the basis of the Appealed Decision, was declared null and void, it follows that the IHF Council decision is inexistent as well”.

43. On 3 October 2018, the CAS Court Office informed the parties that, in light of the IHF’s objection, the admissibility of the PATHF’s “supplementary Appeal Brief” would be decided by the Panel, once constituted.

44. On 5 October 2018, the PATHF commented on the admissibility of its “supplementary Appeal Brief” and requested the Panel to issue a partial award on its prayer for reliefs no. II, III and IV

(see below para. 68). The PATHF further requested that the present case be referred to a sole arbitrator in case the IHF would not pay its share of the advance of costs.

45. On 12 October 2018, the IHF indicated that it was in principle not prepared to pay its share of the advance of costs.

46. On 16 October 2018, the PATHF filed further comments in respect of certain procedural issues.

47. On 22 October 2018, the IHF filed its comments on the PATHF’s application for provisional measures, objecting thereto. The IHF also indicated that it would not pay its share of the advance of costs.

48. On 26 October 2018, the CAS Court Office informed the parties that the President of the CAS

Appeals Arbitration Division had decided to submit the present matter to a sole arbitrator.

49. On 14 November 2018, the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division issued an Order on Provisional Measures, with the following operative part: “1. The Court of Arbitration for Sport has no jurisdiction to deal with the appeal against the decision rendered by the Council of the International Handball Federation (IHF) on 14 January 2018 suspending the Pan-American Team Handball Federation (PATHF).

CAS 2018/A/5868 10

PATHF v. IHF, award of 10 May 2019

2. The application for provisional measures filed by the Pan-American Team Handball Federation

(PATHF) on 25 September 2018 in the matter CAS 2018/A/5868 Pan-American Team Handball Federation (PATHF) v. International Handball Federation (IHF) is granted in respect of the decision rendered by the Council of the International Handball Federation (IHF) on 14 January 2018 to divide the Pan-American continent.

3. The decision issued on 14 January 2018 by the Council of the International Handball Federation

(IHF) in Zagreb, Croatia, implementing the decision taken on 11 November 2017 at the XXXVI IHF Ordinary Congress to divide the Pan-American continent, is provisionally stayed pending a final award on the merits.

4. The International Handball Federation is ordered to refrain from taking any measure tending to implement the division of the Pan-American continent pending a final award on the merits.

5. The costs of the present order shall be determined in the final award or in any other final disposition of this arbitration”.

50. On 19 November 2018, an original copy of the Order on Provisional Measures was notified to the parties.

51. On 5 December 2018, following the payment of the advance of costs, the PATHF requested the CAS Court Office to grant a deadline to the IHF to file its Answer.

52. On 11 December 2018, the CAS Court Office informed the parties that further instructions regarding the admissibility of the “supplementary Appeal Brief” as well as the time limit to file the Answer and to comment on the PATHF’s evidentiary requests would be communicated to the parties in due course. Furthermore, pursuant to Article R54 CAS Code, and on behalf of the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division, the parties were informed that the arbitral tribunal appointed to decide the present matter was constituted as follows: ➢ Prof Dr Martin Schimke, Attorney-at-Law in Dusseldorf, Germany, as Sole Arbitrator.

53. On 27 December 2018, the CAS Court Office informed the parties that Mr Dennis Koolaard, Attorney-at-Law in Arnhem, the Netherlands, had been appointed as Ad hoc Clerk.

54. On 3 January 2019, the PATHF reiterated its request for a time limit to be imposed on the IHF to file its Answer.

55. On 10 January 2019, the CAS Court Office informed the parties that the Sole Arbitrator had determined that a decision on the admissibility of the PATHF’s supplementary Appeal Brief was not necessary at that point of the proceedings and that this issue would be decided concurrently with the final award. The parties were also informed that the suspension of the proceedings was lifted. A time limit was imposed on the IHF to file its Answer and it was invited to comment on the PATHF’s request for production of evidence.

56. On 4 February 2019, the CAS Court Office informed the parties that the Sole Arbitrator had decided to hold a hearing.

CAS 2018/A/5868 11

PATHF v. IHF, award of 10 May 2019

57. On 7 February 2019, the IHF filed its Answer, pursuant to Article R55 CAS Code. The IHF,

inter alia, requested the Sole Arbitrator to reconsider his decision to hold a hearing.

58. On 19 February 2019, the PATHF indicated that it firmly insisted on a hearing being held.

59. On 21 February 2019, the CAS Court Office informed the parties that the Sole Arbitrator had decided to maintain his decision to hold a hearing.

60. On 22 February 2019, the CAS Court Office informed the parties that the hearing was scheduled for 6 March 2019, with the agreement of everyone involved.

61. On 1 and 4 March 2019 respectively, the IHF and the PATHF returned duly signed copies of the Order of Procedure to the CAS Court Office.

62. On 6 March 2019, a hearing was held in Lausanne, Switzerland. At the outset of the hearing both parties confirmed not to have any objection as to the constitution and composition of the arbitral tribunal.

63. In addition to the Sole Arbitrator, Ms Delphine Deschenaux-Rochat, Counsel to the CAS, and Mr Dennis Koolaard, Ad hoc Clerk, the following persons attended the hearing:

a) For the PATHF:

1. Mr Yvan Henzer, Counsel;
2. Ms Monia Karmass, Counsel

b) For the IHF:

1. Ms Amal Khalifa, IHF General Director;
2. Mr Nicolas Zbinden, Counsel.

64. No witnesses or experts were heard. The parties were afforded full opportunity to present their case, submit their arguments and answer the questions posed by the Sole Arbitrator.

65. At the start of the hearing, following an inquiry from the Sole Arbitrator, the PATHF confirmed that it withdrew its request for documents to be produced by the IHF.

66. Before the hearing was concluded, both parties expressly stated that they did not have any objection to the procedure adopted by the Sole Arbitrator and that their right to be heard had been respected.

67. The Sole Arbitrator confirms that he carefully heard and took into account all of the

submissions, evidence, and arguments presented by the parties, even if they have not been specifically summarised or referred to in the present award.

CAS 2018/A/5868 12

PATHF v. IHF, award of 10 May 2019

V. REQUESTS FOR RELIEF

68. In its Statement of Appeal considered as its Appeal Brief, the PATHF submitted the following requests for relief: “I. This appeal is upheld.

II. The Decision taken on 13 August 2018 by the IHF Arbitration Tribunal to dismiss th