Swiss Federal Supreme Court Judgments 4A_494/2024; 4A_510/2024 and 4A_512/2024; SFT 4A_438/2024; 4A_594/2024, rendered on 23 January 2026. Challenges of CAS Award CAS OG 24-15 & CAS OG 24-16 of 10 August 2024
Background Facts
On 23 January 2026, the SFT issued four judgments – all stemming from the women’s floor final at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games, where the allocation of the bronze medal became contested: The coach of US gymnast Jordan Chiles lodged an inquiry against the difficulty score after her routine, which was accepted by the superior jury and resulted in Chiles provisionally moving into third place instead of Romanian gymnast Ana Maria Bărbosu. However, the Romanian Gymnastics Federation (RGF) challenged that outcome before the CAS ad hoc Division, arguing that the inquiry had been submitted outside the strict one-minute deadline set out in Article 8.5 of the FIG Technical Regulations.
The CAS ad hoc Division issued a joint award on this occasion (CAS OG 24-15 & CAS OG 24-16, the Award), that resulted in four SFT judgments as will be shown below: in its CAS award OG 24-15, the Panel found that the inquiry was indeed filed late and was therefore legally ineffective, rejecting arguments that the review of such inquiry fell under the “field of play” doctrine (which prevents CAS from reviewing a case). It further reinstated Chiles’ original score and ordered the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) to reassign the bronze medal to Ana Maria Bărbosu. At the same time, in CAS OG 24-16, the Panel rejected another Romanian gymnast’s separate challenge (the one of Sabrina Maneca-Voinea) concerning the 0.1 out-of-bounds penalty imposed on her exercise, holding that this challenge fell squarely within the field of play doctrine and was therefore non-reviewable.
Proceedings before the SFT
The CAS Award triggered several proceedings before the SFT. The RFG and Maneca-Voinea filed a setting-aside motion regarding the field-of-play decision (4A_438/2024), followed by a request for revision (4A_594/2024), Both challenges were rejected as inadmissible and do not present any interesting findings (apart from the confirmation of the Award’s finding on what constitutes a “field of play” decision), so that they will not be further discussed here.
On the other side, Jordan Chiles filed a motion to set aside the part of the award concerning her inquiry (4A_494/2024), while both Chiles and USA Gymnastics separately sought revision of the award based on newly discovered evidence (4A_510/2024 and 4A_512/2024). The SFT thus had to address, in parallel, ordinary setting-aside proceedings under Article 190 (2) PILA and revision requests under Article 190a PILA.
4A_494/2024: Jordan Chiles’ setting-aside proceedings: field of play and procedural forfeiture
The SFT started its analysis by offering an interesting review of the field of play doctrine. While reaffirming that performance evaluation, scoring, and penalties imposed on the field remain immune from judicial review, the SFT accepted that procedural rules governing the validity of inquiries may, in exceptional cases like in this one, fall outside that doctrine. This is particularly so in this case, where FIG had failed to provide a proper mechanism to ensure finality and fairness in competition.
In a plea alleging a violation of her right to be heard, Jordan Chiles argued that the CAS ad hoc Division should have reopened the proceedings after she submitted additional and conclusive evidence one day after notification of the operative part of the award. The SFT rejected this argument and, in doing so, addressed the issue of when an arbitral award acquires res judicata effect. Without taking a definitive position, the SFT indicated that, by analogy with state courts, arbitral awards appear to acquire res judicata upon notification of the operative part, irrespective of whether the reasoning has been issued, and even though the 30-day time limit to challenge the award before the Tribunal runs from notification of the grounds. In the specific circumstances of the case, the CAS ad hoc Panel was therefore not required – and actually not permitted – to reopen the proceedings. This approach was found to be consistent with the very purpose of the CAS ad hoc Division, namely to ensure the rapid and final resolution of Olympic disputes in the interest of athletes, sports bodies, and the public.
The SFT then rejected Jordan Chiles’ challenge of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal (Art. 190(2)(a) PILA) as both inadmissible and, in the alternative, unfounded. The SFT held that the challenge to the independence of the CAS panel president was time-barred, since the relevant information had been disclosed during the arbitration and no timely objection had been raised: the Panel Chair had disclosed, in his declaration of independence, that he was acting as counsel for Romania in unrelated ICSID investment arbitrations, so that the applicant had failed to exercise the required “duty of curiosity” during the arbitral proceedings. Even accepting the severe time constraints of CAS ad hoc proceedings and the fact that the applicant joined the case late (due to no fault of her own), the SFT considered that she should at least have conducted basic checks, such as consulting the arbitrators’ publicly available CVs on the CAS website. Since the relevant information was easily accessible and could have been discovered with minimal diligence, the challenge was time-barred.
In any event, the SFT held that the disclosure did not reveal an evident conflict of interest considering that it was speculative, the FIG had not raised any objection, and the award appeared to have been rendered unanimously. What is more, the Panel chair had in fact ruled against the Romanian parties in part of the case. The ground under Article 190(2)(a) PILA was therefore both inadmissible and unfounded.
4A_510/2024 and 4A_512/2024: Jordan Chiles’ revision proceedings – potentially decisive new evidence that could not reasonably have been obtained later
Interestingly, in the joined cases 4A_510/2024 and 4A_512/2024, after confirming the Panel’s finding that this dispute was, exceptionally, not a field-of-play dispute (at 6.3), the SFT admitted the revision requests filed by Jordan Chiles and USA Gymnastics. It held that the interest of the applicants in overturning the CAS award was obvious (at 8.2), and that the audio-visual recording produced after the award constituted a) potentially decisive new evidence that b) could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. As a result, the Tribunal partially annulled the CAS award insofar as it concerned CAS OG 24-15 and remitted the case to the CAS for a new decision taking the new evidence into account.
More specifically, the decisive factual issue was whether the verbal inquiry lodged by Jordan Chiles’ coach had been submitted within the one-minute deadline prescribed by Article 8.5 of the FIG Technical Regulations. The CAS panel had concluded that the inquiry was late, relying essentially on the Omega timing report and on the absence of any contrary contemporaneous evidence. The new recording produced by Jordan Chiles, however, directly captured the immediate post-routine sequence and the interactions between the coach and the inquiry desk. According to the SFT, this material was capable of calling into question the factual reconstruction adopted by the CAS, either by suggesting that the inquiry was made within the deadline or by undermining the reliability of the timing evidence on which the CAS had relied. At the revision stage, and contrary to what the other parties’ arguments, the SFT highlighted that it was not required to determine whether this new evidence effectively proved timeliness of the protest, but it sufficed that said evidence could influence the outcome if assessed by the arbitral tribunal. On that basis, the “potentially decisive” criterion was met.
Most importantly, on the due diligence requirement under Article 190a PILA, the SFT found that such recording (a “pseudo-novum”, since it existed prior to the issuance of the award, at 9.5.1) could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, as it was shot by an independent third-party documentary crew, not affiliated with any party to the arbitration and not subject to the FIG’s evidentiary control. At the time of the CAS ad hoc proceedings, neither Jordan Chiles nor USA Gymnastics knew that such footage existed. Interestingly, the SFT placed particular emphasis on the specific character and the extreme temporary constraints of the ad hoc proceedings (at 9.5.5). It also considered the fact that a notification error by the CAS resulted in Jordan Chiles and her federation being notified of the CAS ad hoc proceedings only on 9 August 2025, i.e. three days after the filing of the applications. The SFT also took into account what it characterised as “gross negligence” on the part of the FIG, which had failed to put in place a system to ensure compliance with the time limit for lodging a protest during the competition. All in all, and much like in Sun Yang (albeit in a completely different context), the SFT delineated the limits of the diligence required under Article 190a PILA, while at the same time acknowledging the highly specific circumstances of the case.
On this basis, the Federal Tribunal admitted the revision requests, partially annulled the CAS award insofar as it concerned CAS OG 24-15, and remitted the case to the same CAS Panel.
First revision of an award rendered by the CAS ad hoc division during the Olympic Games
Overall, these two judgments in the motions filed by Jordan Chiles and USAG offer a rich set of legal findings and mark the first successful revision of an award rendered by the CAS ad hoc division during the Olympic Games. The matter will now be back to the original CAS Panel, which will be required to reassess the case in light of the newly admitted evidence. At the same time, the SFT confirmed the Award’s approach to the scope of the field-of-play doctrine, as well as its settled case law on the forfeiture of procedural objections that are not raised in due time. Together, these judgments strike a balance between the finality of Olympic dispute resolution and the exceptional corrective function of revision under Swiss arbitration law.
SFT 4A_494/2024 of 23 January 2026, Jordan Chiles v. FRG, Ana Maria Barbosu & FIG, motion to set aside CAS Award CAS OG 24-15 of 10 August 2024 (dismissed)
SFT 4A_510/2024 of 23 January 2026, Jordan Chiles v. FRG, Ana Maria Barbosu & FIG and 4A_512/2024, of 23 January 2026, USA Gymnastics v. FRG, Ana Maria Barbosu & FIG requests for revision of CAS Award CAS OG 24 -15 of 23 January 2026 (upheld)
SFT 4A_438/2024 of 23 January 2026, FRG & Sabrina Maneca-Voinea v. FIG, motion to set aside CAS Award CAS OG 24-16 (inadmissible)
SFT 4A_594/2024 of 23 January 2026, Sabrina Maneca-Voinea v. FIG, request for revision of CAS Award CAS OG 24-16 of 10 August 2024 (inadmissible)
