On 7 March 2025 the General Assembly of the Lithuanian National Olympic Committee approved the budget for 2025. Every Olympic sport received EUR 40,000, except the Lithuanian biathlon, cycling and athletics federations and the Lithuanian Tennis Union, which together missed out on EUR 160,000. The four appealed to CAS together, and the award of 14 January 2026 is published.
How it started
The four federations are members of the Olympic committee and also of the national association of sports federations. On 30 May 2024 that association put a proposal to the competent committee of the Lithuanian parliament. It asked parliament to delete an exception the government had drafted for the Olympic committee in the Law on Sports, concerning the rotation of board members. Parliament adopted the law on 27 June 2024 without that exception.
On 24 February 2025 the Executive Committee issued a warning to the four federations. The same body then put two draft budgets to the General Assembly. Draft 1 gave EUR 40,000 to each of 36 Olympic sports and excluded the four. Draft 2 covered 40 sports. The difference was EUR 160,000. The General Assembly chose Draft 1.
Why CAS had jurisdiction
The committee’s own statutes gave CAS jurisdiction. Article 70 provides that any decision of the governing bodies may be appealed to CAS, that CAS decides the dispute finally under the CAS Code, and that the period for appeal is twenty-one days from the date of the decision.
That is exactly what Article R47 of the CAS Code requires. The committee did not dispute jurisdiction and confirmed it by signing the Order of Procedure.
The four filed one joint statement of appeal on 17 March 2025, ten days after the General Assembly, under Articles R47 and R48. The arbitrator held that the appeal was in time and met the formal requirements.
Lithuanian law decided the case
Article R58 of the CAS Code determines the governing law: first the applicable regulations, then any law the parties chose, and failing that the law of the country where the body has its seat. Here that meant the committee’s statutes and Lithuanian law.
Article 2.82(4) of the Lithuanian Civil Code decided the case. A decision of a body of a legal person may be declared void where it contravenes mandatory provisions of law, the incorporation documents of that legal person, or the principles of reasonableness and good faith. A CAS case against a national body therefore often turns on national association law.
What the arbitrator decided
The arbitrator partially upheld the appeal, registered as CAS 2025/A/11265.
- The arbitrator set aside the warning of 24 February 2025. Article 33 of the statutes permits a warning only after an assessment of the severity of the facts and the level of damage or breach. The committee had identified no concrete damage or breach.
- The second contested resolution of the Executive Committee stood, but only because the challenge against it had become moot.
- The arbitrator set aside the 2025 budget resolution of the General Assembly.
For that annulment the arbitrator relied on two articles of the statutes themselves. Article 81 lists the purposes the committee’s funds must serve. The committee took the EUR 160,000 from the four and allocated it to nothing else. Article 13.6 commits the committee to fight all discrimination, including on political grounds, and the only criterion for the exclusion was the position of the association to which the four belong.
A majority vote does not cure that: a resolution of a governing body does not meet the requirement of reasonableness and good faith merely because the majority supports it. Otherwise a majority could punish a minority for its opinion.
What CAS did not do
The four also asked CAS to order the committee to convene a new General Assembly and approve Draft 2. The arbitrator dismissed that request. Such an order would exceed the powers of CAS and interfere unduly with the internal autonomy of the committee.
CAS therefore sets aside a decision, but it does not run your association for you. The costs ruling is left out of the published version of the award.
What a federation board takes from this
- Read the appeal clause in your own statutes before there is a conflict. Here it sat in Article 70, with twenty-one days from the date of the decision.
- A decision of your own umbrella body or Olympic committee can be challenged, including one about money rather than discipline.
- Federations can appeal together and share a single procedure.
- Minutes carry weight: the arbitrator decided this case largely on what the minutes said.
- Decide which outcome you want, because if CAS sets the decision aside, you get a new vote and not the money.
Our page on sports federations describes how we assist governing bodies, and the page on arbitration sets out the CAS procedure. We tell you what the work costs before we begin.
Further questions? Feel free to contact us on 09/334.94.70, via the contact form or via sport@everest-law.be.