Swiss Federal Supreme Court Judgment of 20 May 2025, A. v. UIB
Motion to set aside CAS Award CAS 2020/A/7509 of 18 November 2024
The case concerns a former Russian biathlete, multiple Olympic medallist, whose Athlete Biological Passport (ABP), based on 17 blood samples collected between 2010 and 2014, showed highly abnormal haemoglobin values suggesting blood manipulation. After a multi-year expert review process – including four successive joint expert reports – the International Biathlon Union (IBU) brought the case before the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAD). In October 2020, CAD found an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV), imposed a four-year suspension, and disqualified all results from 2010–2014. The athlete appealed to the CAS Appeals Division and, in parallel, filed a motion with the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT), which the SFT dismissed as inadmissible in June 2021 (see my note on the SFT 4A_612/2020 here). After CAS confirmed CAD’s jurisdiction in 2022, the SFT again dismissed the athlete’s challenge (see my note on SFT 4A_232/2022 here). The CAS ultimately rejected the appeal in November 2024, confirming the ADRV, which led to the present motion before the SFT.
In essence, the CAS Panel held that all ABP samples were valid and found that the genetic variation invoked by the athlete (EGLN2 mutation) could not explain the haemoglobin patterns. It accepted as admissible the genetic expert report prepared at WADA’s request and reasoned that, even hypothetically assuming elevated baseline haemoglobin, the significant fluctuations documented remained unexplained. The Panel highlighted circumstantial indicators: peaks coinciding with major competitions and the athlete’s status as a “protected athlete” in the Sochi-era Russian doping system. It concluded, to its comfortable satisfaction, that an ADRV occurred between 2010 and 2014 and confirmed the full set of sanctions.
Before the SFT, the athlete relied exclusively on material public policy (Art. 190 para. 2 (e) PILA), framing his arguments as violations of the presumption of innocence, the in dubio pro reo principle, and legal certainty. He claimed that CAS had improperly shifted the burden of proof, failed to resolve scientific doubt regarding genetic explanations, and relied on evidence from long-past events in breach of legal security. He also argued that the SFT should directly apply Art. 6 ECHR in light of the ECtHR’s Semenya judgment.
The SFT rejected the appeal. Similar to other judgments, and since the Semenya ECHR judgment was still pending before the Grand Chamber (see my note here) it reiterated that Art. 6 ECHR cannot be invoked directly in challenges against international arbitration awards. Moreover, disciplinary proceedings of private sports bodies do not trigger the criminal-law standards of presumption of innocence or in dubio pro reo. It also noted that CAS had no reasonable doubts regarding the ADRV after assessing the full evidentiary record. The allegation of breach of “legal certainty” was dismissed as unfounded, since the athlete had been informed of the investigation as early as 2017, and the applicable 10-year prescription period had not expired. The SFT held that none of the athlete’s objections reached the extremely high threshold required to establish a violation of Swiss ordre public, and the appeal was therefore rejected.
