TAS - Laudo Arbitral TAS 2025-A-11464 Northern Ireland Federation of Sea Anglers v. CIPS & FIPS-M

CAS 2025/A/11464 Northern Ireland Federation of Sea Anglers v. Confédération Internationale de la Pêche Sportive & Fédération Internationale de la Pêche Sportive en Mer ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

sitting in the following composition:

President: Mr. Michele A.R. Bernasconi, Attorney-at-Law in Zurich, Switzerland Arbitrators: Rt. Hon. Lord John A. Dyson, Arbitrator in London, United Kingdom Mr. Efraim Barak, Attorney-at-law in Tel-Aviv, Israel in the arbitration between Northern Ireland Federation of Sea Anglers, Bangor, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom Represented by Mr. Brian Moss, Solicitor, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom

• Appellantand

Confédération Internationale de la Pêche Sportive, Rome, Italy, and Fédération Internationale de la Pêche Sportive en Mer, Luxembourg Both represented by Mr. Borja Osés and Mr. Toni García, Attorneys-at-Law, Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain - Respondents -CAS 2025/A/11464 Page 2

I. PARTIES

1. The Northern Ireland Federation of Sea Anglers (the "NIFSA" or the "Appellant") is an association established in 2018 and based in Bangor, Northern Ireland. According to its Constitution, the Appellant purports in particular to represent sea anglers and sea angling clubs, to promote and regulate the sport of sea angling, and to organise competitions and international participation, in Northern Ireland.

2. The Confédération Internationale de la Pêche Sportive (the "CIPS" or the "First Respondent") is a non-profit international association established in 1952 in Rome, Italy.

According to its statutes, CIPS promotes mutual understanding and friendship among its member federations, with the overarching aim of fostering peace and international

Respondent") is a non-profit international association established in 1952 in Rome, Italy. According to its statutes, CIPS promotes mutual understanding and friendship among its member federations, with the overarching aim of fostering peace and international cooperation through the sport of fishing, in line with the principles of the Olympic ideal. CIPS comprises three international federations, each governing a distinct discipline of sport fishing: (i) the Fédération Internationale de la Pêche Sportive en Eau Douce; (ii) the Fédération Internationale de la Pêche Sportive Mouche; and (iii) the Fédération Internationale de la Pêche Sportive en Mer.

3. The Fédération Internationale de la Pêche Sportive en Mer (the "FIPS-M" or the "Second Respondent") is an international association established in 1972 in Prague and currently based in Luxembourg. FIPS-M is one of the three international federations that form part of CIPS. According to its statutes, FIPS-M aims to promote the practice of sport fishing at sea worldwide, in cooperation with all national federations affiliated to CIPS. It also seeks to protect marine species and their environment. Furthermore, it pursues goals of international understanding and friendship through sea angling, in line with the Olympic ideal, and maintains relations with other global organisations that share these objectives.

Pursuant to Article 3.1 of its Statutes, any national federation wishing to become a member of FIPS-M must recognise the statutes of both FIPS-M and CIPS.

4. The First Respondent and the Second Respondent are hereinafter jointly referred to as the

"Respondents".

5. The Appellant and the Respondents are hereinafter jointly referred to as the "Parties".

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

6. What follows is a short summary of the background facts and allegations based on the Parties’ written and oral submissions, pleadings and evidence examined during the present proceedings. Additional facts and allegations contained in the Parties’ submissions, pleadings and evidence will be set out, where relevant, in the legal

6. What follows is a short summary of the background facts and allegations based on the Parties’ written and oral submissions, pleadings and evidence examined during the present proceedings. Additional facts and allegations contained in the Parties’ submissions, pleadings and evidence will be set out, where relevant, in the legal discussion below. While the Panel has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the Parties, this award (the "Award") refers only to the submissions and evidence considered necessary to explain the reasoning.

7. To properly understand the context of the present dispute, it is necessary to recall the institutional structure of the international federations governing the sport of angling.

CIPS, established in Rome in 1952, is the umbrella organisation for sport fishing at aCAS 2025/A/11464 Page 3

global level. CIPS promotes, coordinates, and develops all forms of angling as a sport and is composed of three specialised international federations: (i) the Fédération Internationale de la Pêche Sportive en Eau Douce (FIPS-ED), for freshwater fishing; (ii) the Fédération Internationale de la Pêche Sportive Mouche (FIPS-Mouche), for fly fishing; and (iii) the Fédération Internationale de la Pêche Sportive en Mer (FIPS-M), for sea angling.

8. As of today1, the composition of these organisations is as follows: (i) CIPS: 110 national federations from 84 countries; (ii) FIPS-ED: 69 national federations; (iii) FIPS-M: 46 national federations; and (iv) FIPS-Mouche: 38 national federations.

9. Among the current members of CIPS and FIPS-M is the Irish Federation of Sea Anglers ("IFSA"), which was founded in 1953 and has been affiliated to both organisations since

1980. According to its Constitution2, IFSA's objectives are to: (a) develop, foster and

9. Among the current members of CIPS and FIPS-M is the Irish Federation of Sea Anglers ("IFSA"), which was founded in 1953 and has been affiliated to both organisations since

1980. According to its Constitution2, IFSA's objectives are to: (a) develop, foster and regulate the sport of sea angling in Ireland; (b) act and speak on behalf of sea angling in Ireland and where such interests are involved, with similar organisations in other countries; and (c) make rules governing the sport of sea angling, particularly in festivals and competitions of all kinds.

10. IFSA is organised into four Provincial Councils, one for each of the four historic provinces of Ireland: Ulster, Munster, Leinster, and Connacht. The province of Ulster comprises nine counties, six of which form part of Northern Ireland, while the remaining three lie within the Republic of Ireland. Consequently, IFSA has jurisdictional reach over the entire island of Ireland, including Northern Ireland.

11. IFSA was admitted as a member of CIPS in 1980, and subsequently affiliated to FIPS-M, as the national federation for the discipline of sea angling representing the entire island of Ireland. This affiliation, which remains in full force today, reflects the inclusive structure of IFSA, which encompasses the four Irish provinces—Leinster, Munster, Connacht and Ulster. Given that six of Ulster's nine counties lie within Northern Ireland, IFSA's jurisdiction extends to that territory as well.

12. Crucially, Sport Northern Ireland — the public authority responsible for the development and regulation of sport within Northern Ireland — formally recognises IFSA as the sole national governing body for the discipline of sea angling within that jurisdiction. This is expressly confirmed in the public authority's official materials, including <The Sports Councils: Recognition Process – Applicant Guidance 2017>, which provides that an organisation in Northern Ireland may operate on an All-Ireland or Ulster Provincial basis.

This institutional framework is also reflected in the allocation of national governing bodies for the other angling disciplines.

Councils: Recognition Process – Applicant Guidance 2017>, which provides that an organisation in Northern Ireland may operate on an All-Ireland or Ulster Provincial basis.

This institutional framework is also reflected in the allocation of national governing bodies for the other angling disciplines.

13. The background to the present dispute dates back several years. On 24 February 2023, the Appellant submitted an initial application for membership to both FIPS-M and CIPS. This

1 Based on data provided by Respondents in their Answer. 2 The Parties have not used the term "Statutes" or "Constitution" in a strictly consistent manner. The Panel considers both terms equivalent, and they are therefore both used in this Award.CAS 2025/A/11464 Page 4

request was formally considered at the CIPS Congress held in Rome on 29 April 20233. As recorded in the official minutes of the Congress, the matter was discussed under the agenda items concerning new memberships requests. The President of FIPS-M addressed the issue, explaining that the whole island of Ireland was part of IFSA, which was affiliated to FIPS-M and that it well represented the four provinces. He pointed out that if the assembly was going to accept a new federation as a member, this would automatically destroy the current member federation, IFSA, with which they have never had any problem. He therefore proposed to the CIPS Congress to keep the existing member federation and to reject the new membership proposal. The Congress unanimously accepted this proposal.

14. Following this decision, on 25 September 2023, the Appellant's legal counsel sent a formal letter to FIPS-M urging a prompt response to the membership request.

15. On 25 October 2023, CIPS issued a written reply, which reiterated the grounds for rejection. The CIPS letter stated that the CIPS Congress held in Rome in April 2023 had unanimously decided to reject the application for affiliation. This unanimous decision derived from the fact that Northern Ireland was already represented in CIPS by IFSA, a

rejection. The CIPS letter stated that the CIPS Congress held in Rome in April 2023 had unanimously decided to reject the application for affiliation. This unanimous decision derived from the fact that Northern Ireland was already represented in CIPS by IFSA, a federation that includes and acts on behalf of the four Irish provinces, that is, the whole of Ireland. CIPS stated that the problem between IFSA and the Appellant was a political issue that could and should be resolved locally and not by a sports body such as CIPS. CIPS did not want to be authorised to make political decisions or intervene in issues concerning the internal structures of CIPS-affiliated national federations.

16. On 2 February 2024, the CIPS Praesidium held a meeting in which the membership application submitted by the Appellant was once again addressed. As recorded in the official minutes, the discussion reaffirmed the conclusions already reached at the 2023

CIPS Congress, making clear that no new arguments or documentation had been presented by the Appellant to justify a reconsideration of CIPS's position. The minutes stated that the letter sent by the Appellant did not contain any further information beyond that already in the possession of CIPS and FIPS-M. The Praesidium unanimously approved the decision to reconfirm the affiliation of IFSA as it still represented the four provinces of Ireland.

17. On 14 January 2025, the Appellant formally submitted a renewed application for membership to both FIPS-M and CIPS, seeking to be admitted as the national federation for sea angling in Northern Ireland. This application contained letters of support from members of the UK Parliament, Irish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly across the political spectrum, together with testimonials from key stakeholders and relevant information about the constitutional position of Northern Ireland and the operation of the

Good Friday Agreement of 1998.

18. This request was discussed at the CIPS Congress held in Slovenia on 24, 25 and 26 April

2025. The CIPS Congress, relying on Articles 3.2 of the FIPS-M Statutes and 4.4 of the

Good Friday Agreement of 1998.

18. This request was discussed at the CIPS Congress held in Slovenia on 24, 25 and 26 April

2025. The CIPS Congress, relying on Articles 3.2 of the FIPS-M Statutes and 4.4 of the

3 The Panel notes that the Parties and the documents submitted sometimes refer to 28, other times to 29 April

2023. This is likely to be a typo. In any event, none of the Parties has argued that this formal inaccuracy is of any relevance.CAS 2025/A/11464

Page 5

CIPS Statutes, unanimously resolved to maintain the affiliation of IFSA (the "Appealed Decision"). This decision confirmed the one previously taken at the 2023 CIPS Congress. The Appealed Decision was communicated to Appellant on 7 May 2025.

III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

19. On 27 May 2025, the Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal against the Appealed Decision. In its Statement of Appeal, the Appellant nominated Rt. Hon Lord John A.

Dyson (United Kingdom) as arbitrator.

20. On 6 June 2025, the Appellant filed its Appeal Brief in accordance with Article R51 of the Code.

21. In a letter dated 16 June 2025, the Respondents jointly nominated Mr Efraim Barak

(Israel) as arbitrator. In this letter, the Respondents also requested that the time limit to file their Answer be fixed after the payment by the Appellant of its share of the advance of costs, pursuant to Article R55 (3) of the Code.

22. On 31 July 2025, the Respondents filed their joint Answer in accordance with Article R55 (1) of the Code.

23. On 8 August 2025, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that the Panel appointed

to decide the matter was constituted as follows:

President: Mr Michele A.R. Bernasconi, Attorney-at-law in Zurich, Switzerland

(1) of the Code.

23. On 8 August 2025, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that the Panel appointed

to decide the matter was constituted as follows: President: Mr Michele A.R. Bernasconi, Attorney-at-law in Zurich, Switzerland Arbitrators: Rt. Hon Lord John A. Dyson, Arbitrator in London, United Kingdom Mr Efraim Barak, Attorney-at-law in Tel-Aviv, Israel.

24. On 17 September 2025, a case management conference ("CMC") took place, at which all Parties were represented and during which practical matters were discussed and agreed.

25. On 14 October 2025, following several procedural submissions made by the Parties, the Panel informed the Parties that for the reasons explained and discussed in detail during the CMC of 17 September 2025, the Panel did not allow additional written submissions.

Furthermore, the Panel informed the Parties that it was not satisfied that the requirements set out in Article R56 of the CAS Code were fulfilled and, accordingly, the Panel declined to permit additional written submissions. The Parties were however reminded that they would be afforded the opportunity to address these matters during the Hearing, should they wish to do so.

26. On 10 December 2025, the Hearing was held, in person, at the CAS Court Office in Lausanne. The following persons attended the hearing besides the Panel and Mr Fabien

Cagneux, Managing Counsel at the CAS:

For the Appellant:

• Mr. David Sharpe KC, CounselCAS 2025/A/11464

Page 6

• Ms Katherine Sharpe BL, Counsel - Mr. Brian Moss, Solicitor - Mr. Harry McKee, for the Appellant

For the Respondents:

• Mr. Toni Garcia, Counsel - Mr. Borja Osés, Counsel - Mr. Juan Antonio Barreda, by video, for CIPS - Mr. José Luis Bruna, by video, for FIPS-M

For the Respondents:

• Mr. Toni Garcia, Counsel - Mr. Borja Osés, Counsel - Mr. Juan Antonio Barreda, by video, for CIPS - Mr. José Luis Bruna, by video, for FIPS-M

27. At the outset of the Hearing, the Parties declared that they had no objection to the appointment of the Panel and to the way in which the procedure had been conducted until the Hearing.

28. The Panel heard the Parties and their representatives. During the Hearing, the Parties made full oral submissions. Before the Hearing concluded, the Parties expressly stated that they had no objection to the procedure adopted by the Panel and confirmed that they had been given a full opportunity to present their cases, submit their arguments, and to answer the questions posed by the Panel. They confirmed that their right to be heard had been respected and that due process had been granted.

IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

29. This section of the Award does not contain an exhaustive list of the Parties’ contentions; its aim is to provide a summary of the substance of the Parties’ main arguments, to facilitate the understanding of the Award. In considering and deciding upon the Parties’ claims, the Panel has accounted for and carefully considered all the submissions made and all the evidence adduced by the Parties, including allegations and arguments not mentioned in this section of the Award or in the discussion of the claims below.

A. The Appellant’s Position

30. The Appellant's submissions, in essence, may be summarised as follows:

(i) Unlawful interpretation of the Statutes

31. The Appellant contends that the Respondents have interpreted Article 3.2 of the FIPS-M Statutes and Article 4.4 of the CIPS Statutes in an overly restrictive manner, contrary to established CAS jurisprudence.

32. Article 3.2 of the FIPS-M Statutes reads as follows: "Each Nation can have only one Federation [...] per discipline of sport sea angling [...] only the Federation which is accredited and recognised by its

established CAS jurisprudence.

32. Article 3.2 of the FIPS-M Statutes reads as follows: "Each Nation can have only one Federation [...] per discipline of sport sea angling [...] only the Federation which is accredited and recognised by its Nation will be accepted."CAS 2025/A/11464

Page 7

33. Article 4.4 of the CIPS reads as follows: "Each Nation shall not be allowed to affiliate more than one National federation or other nationally recognized Organization to an International Federation of C.I.P.S., except if the Statutes of a C.I.P.S. International Federation authorise the affiliation of more than one National Federation per Country, in different disciplines."

34. According to the Appellant, the terms "Nation" and "Country" should not be construed solely in their political or sovereign sense but must be interpreted in line with prior practice and CAS decisions, which allow for flexible recognition of non-sovereign entities as countries or nations in the framework of specific sport activities. The Appellant argues that, given the admission of England, Scotland, Wales, and Gibraltar as members of FIPSM and CIPS, the same approach should apply to Northern Ireland. Furthermore, the Appellant asserts that the principle of in dubio contra stipulatorem requires that the statutes be interpreted against the Respondents.

35. The Appellant submits that the CAS decision in CAS 98/2001 indicates that the word 'country' is not to be understood as having its common political meaning. In CAS 2002/O/410, the Court noted that the territory of Gibraltar was a dependent territory of the United Kingdom and it was not an independent state. The CAS noted that it was not consistent with the opinion of CAS, as expressed in previous decisions, that the concept of a nation or a country in the sports context must necessarily be understood as having its common political meaning. The Appellant argues that it meets the objective membership criteria of both CIPS and FIPS-M.

(ii) Violation of general principles of law

of a nation or a country in the sports context must necessarily be understood as having its common political meaning. The Appellant argues that it meets the objective membership criteria of both CIPS and FIPS-M. (ii) Violation of general principles of law

36. The Appellant claims that the refusal to grant it membership violates general principles of law, including procedural fairness, proportionality, legitimate expectations, equal treatment, and good faith.

(iii) Failure to consider material evidence

37. The Appellant alleges that the Respondents failed to consider material evidence submitted with its application, including letters of support from local politicians and sports bodies, the historical and political context of Northern Ireland under the Good Friday Agreement, and the differentiated international treatment of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The Appellant also refers to the existing membership of other UK constituent parts (i.e. England, Scotland and Wales) and Gibraltar as precedents.

(iv) Unreasonable and irrational decision

38. The Appellant argues that the refusal of membership was unreasonable and irrational, particularly given the precedents of other constituent parts of the UK. It criticises the decision-making process as cursory and lacking serious consideration of newly presented facts, asserting that the Respondents acted arbitrarily and without proper justification. The application was effectively ignored by the Respondents who dismissed it with apparentCAS 2025/A/11464

Page 8

disregard and failed to notify the Appellant of the outcome until requested by email on 7 May 2025.

39. The Appellant submitted the following Prayers for relief: “a) Set aside and/or amend the decision of the Respondents communicated to the Appellant on 7th May 2025; b) Declare that the Respondents have acted unlawfully and/or unreasonably and/or unreasonably and/or irrationally in their refusal to grant the Appellant's request to be appointed as the NF for sea angling in Northern Ireland; c) Order the Respondents to appoint the Appellant as a member of FIPS-M and CIPS;

and/or unreasonably and/or irrationally in their refusal to grant the Appellant's request to be appointed as the NF for sea angling in Northern Ireland; c) Order the Respondents to appoint the Appellant as a member of FIPS-M and CIPS; d) Further or other relief as the Panel deems appropriate; e) Order the Respondents to bear the costs of the arbitration and the Appellant's legal expenses."

B. The Respondent’s Position

40. The Respondents' submissions, in essence, may be summarised as follows:

(i) Lack of standing to be sued alone

41. In accordance with well-established jurisprudence of CAS, the proper identification of the respondent in an appeal is a fundamental procedural requirement. The Respondents submit that they lack standing to be sued alone in these proceedings. The IFSA is the national federation formally admitted within the structures of both Respondents. IFSA's jurisdiction expressly includes the entire island of Ireland, comprising all four provinces, and thus encompasses also the territory of Northern Ireland. Notably, IFSA is also the only organisation recognised by Sport Northern Ireland — the public authority responsible for the development of sport in that jurisdiction — as the national governing body for the discipline of sea angling. Despite this, the Appellant has chosen not to join IFSA to the present proceedings as a co-respondent, even though the relief it seeks would directly affect IFSA's legal position and membership status within both CIPS and FIPSM.

42. The Respondents refer to CAS 2021/A/8225, where the Sole Arbitrator found that the respondent lacked standing to be sued alone in connection with the appealed decision, and thus that the appellant erred in filing his appeal only against the federation and not also against the clubs directly affected by the outcome of the appeal. The same reasoning was confirmed in CAS 2020/A/7061, where the Panel refused to entertain an appeal, whose outcome would have directly affected clubs that were not party to the procedure.

against the clubs directly affected by the outcome of the appeal. The same reasoning was confirmed in CAS 2020/A/7061, where the Panel refused to entertain an appeal, whose outcome would have directly affected clubs that were not party to the procedure.

43. The Respondents submit that Articles 4.4 of the CIPS Statutes and 3.2 of the FIPS-M Statutes confirm that the admission of a second national federation for the same disciplineCAS 2025/A/11464

Page 9

and territory is not permitted, absent statutory authorisation, and that the national federation recognised by the relevant national authority shall be the one admitted.

44. In the present case, IFSA is the body recognised by Sport Northern Ireland, the competent public authority. Additionally, IFSA has been admitted since several years as member of the Respondents, in accordance with the applicable rules. Accordingly, granting the relief sought would not only interfere directly with IFSA's acquired rights and legal status within CIPS and FIPS-M, but would also breach the applicable statutory framework and require the Panel to issue an order that contravenes the binding regulations of both federations — all in the absence of the party most directly affected.

45. In practical terms, this relief would produce legal consequences that interfere with IFSA's rights, including its exclusive representational status, its voting rights within CIPS and FIPS-M, and its capacity to enter athletes into international competitions. The Panel would therefore be issuing an order that alters the institutional equilibrium in which IFSA operates — without hearing its position.

(ii) Correct interpretation and application of the Statutes

46. The Respondents submit that the Appellant's main contention is that the Respondents have applied Article 3.2 of the FIPS-M Statutes and Article 4.4 of the CIPS Statutes in an unduly restrictive manner, contrary to the object and purpose of those instruments and to established CAS jurisprudence, particularly regarding the recognition of non-sovereign entities in international sport.

47. The Respondents acknowledge that they have consistently accepted as full members

unduly restrictive manner, contrary to the object and purpose of those instruments and to established CAS jurisprudence, particularly regarding the recognition of non-sovereign entities in international sport.

47. The Respondents acknowledge that they have consistently accepted as full members national federations representing entities that do not correspond to sovereign states — such as England, Scotland, Wales, and Gibraltar. This reflects a long-standing practice in international sport, where the concepts of "nation" or "country" are not interpreted strictly in their political sense, but in a flexible, functional manner, adapted to the sporting context.

48. However, this flexibility does not mean that multiple federations may be recognised for the same sport and territory. Quite the contrary: the very provisions invoked by the Appellant impose strict limitations in this regard. Article 4.4 of the CIPS Statutes provides that each nation shall not be allowed to affiliate more than one national federation or other nationally recognized organization to an International Federation of CIPS, except if the Statutes of a CIPS International Federation authorise the affiliation of more than one national federation per country, in different disciplines. Likewise, Article 3.2 of the FIPSM Statutes provides that each nation can have only one federation per discipline of sport sea angling, and that only the federation which is accredited and recognised by its nation will be accepted.

49. These provisions make clear that, regardless of how the term "nation" is interpreted, only one federation per discipline may be affiliated per territory. That is precisely the situation here. IFSA — founded in 1953 and affiliated to both CIPS and FIPS-M for several decades — was admitted as the national federation for sea angling representing all four Irish provinces, including the territory of Northern Ireland. IFSA is therefore theCAS 2025/A/11464

Page 10

federation currently exercising jurisdiction over the entire island of Ireland, including Northern Ireland. Moreover, as required by Article 3.2 of the FIPS-M Statutes, IFSA is officially recognised by Sport Northern Ireland as the national governing body for the

Page 10

federation currently exercising jurisdiction over the entire island of Ireland, including Northern Ireland. Moreover, as required by Article 3.2 of the FIPS-M Statutes, IFSA is officially recognised by Sport Northern Ireland as the national governing body for the sport of sea angling in that jurisdiction, a criterion it has consistently fulfilled throughout its longstanding affiliation.

50. The Respondents submit that the Appellant seeks to be recognised as the national federation for sea angling in Northern Ireland within the international structures of CIPS and FIPS-M, notwithstanding the fact that this jurisdiction is already covered by IFSA's existing and long-standing recognition. Under the applicable statutes, such recognition can only be granted to one federation per nation or territory and per sport discipline. As such, the Appellant's application could only be granted if IFSA were first disaffiliated.

That is not the case. Quite the contrary: at its General Assembly held in Slovenia in April 2025, the CIPS Congress examined the Appellant's application and, in full compliance with the governing statutes, unanimously resolved to maintain the affiliation of IFSA, confirming the decision taken, in April 2023, at the CIPS Congress of Rome.

51. The Respondents submit that this is not a case in which Northern Ireland is barred from having a national governing body for sea angling. Rather, it is a case in which Northern Ireland is already represented by a national governing body — IFSA — which has been recognised by both CIPS and FIPS-M, as well as by Sport Northern Ireland, and which continues to fulfil all the applicable membership criteria.

52. Finally, the Respondents submitted the following Prayers for relief: "1. The appeal lodged by the Northern Ireland Federation of Sea Anglers against the decision rendered by the Confédération Internationale de la Pêche Sportive in April 2025 is dismissed, and the decision confirmed.

2. The entire costs of the proceedings and a contribution towards the legal f