ECF loses case

[Christopher Kreuzer]

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?p=20072

"Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruling

A ruling has been made by CAS in the case brought by the ECF and the Georgian Chess Federation (GCF) against FIDE, concerning the appointment of five Vice Presidents when FIDE rules allow only for two. The Panel of Judges ruled against the ECF and GCF on a technicality.

The ECF’s legal costs of the case and the contribution to FIDE’s costs awarded by CAS are being met in full by a third party. There will be no financial impact on the ECF or its members.

A full statement on the ruling will follow shortly."

The above is quoted from the link given at the start of this post.

[Alex McFarlane]

[quote=There will be no financial impact on the ECF or its members.[/quote]

I am glad to hear that the ECF are sending 1000 euros to Lara and presumably something to Sean as well. I will let the forum know when Lara receives her money.

[Sean Hewitt]

I am glad to hear that the ECF are sending 1000 euros to Lara and presumably something to Sean as well. I will let the forum know when Lara receives her money.

It is clear that the comment is in relation to to the legal costs, both the ECF's and FIDE's.

The ECF’s legal costs of the case and the contribution to FIDE’s costs awarded by CAS are being met in full by a third party. There will be no financial impact on the ECF or its members.

Being disingenuous simply doesn't help. If you feel so strongly you could always ask appointed arbietrs to boycott the Olympiad in protest at the treatment of their fellow arbiters.

[Alex McFarlane]

I'm sorry Sean I think both FIDE and the ECF are trying to put a spin on the CAS ruling with their respective statements.

The ECF statement is not clear on it only applying to the legal costs. I accept that may have been what was intended but the statement is ambiguous.

[Krishna Shiatis]

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?p=20072

"Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruling

A ruling has been made by CAS in the case brought by the ECF and the Georgian Chess Federation (GCF) against FIDE, concerning the appointment of five Vice Presidents when FIDE rules allow only for two. The Panel of Judges ruled against the ECF and GCF on a technicality.

The ECF’s legal costs of the case and the contribution to FIDE’s costs awarded by CAS are being met in full by a third party. There will be no financial impact on the ECF or its members.

A full statement on the ruling will follow shortly."

The above is quoted from the link given at the start of this post.

Thanks Chris.

Just out of curiousity (and I know a full statement will follow shortly) - does anyone know what the technicality was? It wasn't something really silly was it?

[Angus French]

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?p=20072

"Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruling

A ruling has been made by CAS in the case brought by the ECF and the Georgian Chess Federation (GCF) against FIDE, concerning the appointment of five Vice Presidents when FIDE rules allow only for two. The Panel of Judges ruled against the ECF and GCF on a technicality.

The ECF’s legal costs of the case and the contribution to FIDE’s costs awarded by CAS are being met in full by a third party. There will be no financial impact on the ECF or its members.

A full statement on the ruling will follow shortly."

The above is quoted from the link given at the start of this post.

Thanks Chris.

Just out of curiousity (and I know a full statement will follow shortly) - does anyone know what the technicality was? It wasn't something really silly was it?

Some comments:
- I'm confused about the number of VPs that the President is able to appoint and nominate. Is it the case that two VPs are automatically appointed from the election ticket and then, in theory, an additional two may be nominated by the President and confirmed by the General Assembly? If yes, then it's the additional nominations which concerned the ECF and the GCF, isn't it - since these numbered five rather than two? [edit]Have edited this point as I've been confused.[/edit]
- There were actually two cases and each was lost on a technicality (see earlier in this thread for a summary).
- I believe, again from reading the text of the decision, that the ECF and GCF are also responsible for the payment of court fees.

[Krishna Shiatis]

Some comments:
- I'm confused about the number of VPs that the President is able to appoint and nominate. Is it the case that two VPs are automatically appointed from the election ticket and then, in theory, an additional two may be nominated by the President and confirmed by the General Assembly? If yes, then it's the additional nominations which concerned the ECF and the GCF, isn't it - since these numbered five rather than two? [edit]Have edited this point as I've been confused.[/edit]
- There were actually two cases and each was lost on a technicality (see earlier in this thread for a summary).
- I believe, again from reading the text of the decision, that the ECF and GCF are also responsible for the payment of court fees.

Thanks Angus. I am also confused about the amount of VPs which can be appointed whether by the council or any other.

Thank you for explaining that there were two cases. When you said this, I began to look a little more closely into what was going on.

I did look at the decision by CAS and have put it here for reference direct from the FIDE site:

"The CAS dismissed the two appeals. Its main rulings are as follows:

The Panel first decided that the dispute should be examined in light not only of Swiss law but also of the general principles of law (lex sportiva).

Second, the Panel considered that, contrary to what was alleged by the Appellants, the decision to appoint the five Vice-Presidents in Khanty-Mansiysk was a decision taken by FIDE General Assembly, and not a unilateral decision of FIDE President.

As a consequence, the CAS:

• dismissed the first appeal filed by the Appellants because it wrongly challenged the Presidential Board’s “decision” instead of the General Assembly’s confirmation and approval of the five nominated Vice-Presidents;
• held that the second appeal was inadmissible, having been brought six months after the General Assembly, i.e. later than the 21 day time limit set out in the CAS procedural rules."

This was from the FIDE website - if there are any incorrect points, please do not shoot me.

However, I do note two interesting points. The first is that the General Assembly has appointed the VPs and not the President and the second that complaints have to be brought in within 21 days to CAS. I am guessing that our team would have/should have known this before the legal action commenced?

I am no legal eagle, but could our own lawyers have not told our team that based on this, the actions brought were lost before they even began? Surely they should have done their homework?

The 21 day thing is IMO inexcusable. In the light of this, the whole legal action and monies spent does seem even worse than it did before.

[Andrew Farthing]

There will be no financial impact on the ECF or its members.

I am glad to hear that the ECF are sending 1000 euros to Lara and presumably something to Sean as well. I will let the forum know when Lara receives her money.

This seems to be confusing the ruling in the CAS action and the decision by the President of the Turkish Chess Federation to exclude arbiters from any country whose national federation had taken legal action against FIDE.

As I have said several times before, in appealing to CAS, the ECF and the other six national federations affected were acting legitimately and within the FIDE statutes - even if there are those who disagree with the chosen actions - whereas the exclusion of nominated arbiters on purely political grounds was neither legitimate nor, being an act of discrimination, allowable within FIDE statutes.

[John McKenna]

Just trying to get things straight - the 5 VPs were nominated by the President then confirmed by the General Assembly. However, is that number of VPs allowed by FIDE's constitution? If not, then the President initiated a series of events that were unconstitutional.

[Alex McFarlane]

Andrew,
No-one is defending the Turkish action. But it was brought about by an ECF Board decision which you thought was not worth taking. You even broke your own belief in Board confidentiality to make that point clear to the forum readers.

As such I think that it is perfectly reasonable that the financial backers of the CAS action should be asked to compensate the arbiters concerned.

If the Turkish CF have broken FIDE statutes and FIDE refuses to take any action against them will the ‘backers’ then look to the ECF to take further action? At least on such an occasion you would have a case that is worth fighting.
You give the impression of having ruled out this possibility. It would be extremely nice if Messrs Short and De Mooi would return to this forum and express support for those affected in the fallout.

Instead we have the FIDE Delegate and Alternate President stating that Lara only organises “Mickey Mouse” tournaments. (Another outrageous statement that should have produced an apology or a Board insistence on his resignation.)

[Ernie Lazenby]

Alex. I have been a loyal supporter and will continue to be however I think its fairly obvious now that CJ De-Mooi in particular has no intentions of posting anything on this forum in the aftermath of Sheffield or the recent legal action against FIDE which one can reasonably conclude he was heavily involved in discusions leading up to it. Mr Short until this week was seemingly willing to say something even if it was to be unwarranted and hurtfull comments about the British Lara is organising. Perhaps he now feels unable to say something given the ECF lost the case.

Financial questions seem to be answered by Andrew. I think we can accept his word on that matter.

Persoanlly I feel these threads are going over and over old ground and there is little doubt that the minds of those who read the comments will be focused for the AGM in October. I think I know which way a sizeable block of votes will be cast when it comes to election of officials and at that time you may feel there has been some resolution to your obvious antipathy directed towards certain officials, a feeling shared by many I think.

There is perhaps a danger that this forum can overdo a just cause when the message has already got home.

Just my opinion - you know I am a vocal and loyal supporter of you and Lara. Keep up the good work.

[IanDavis]

However, I do note two interesting points. The first is that the General Assembly has appointed the VPs and not the President and the second that complaints have to be brought in within 21 days to CAS. I am guessing that our team would have/should have known this before the legal action commenced?

I am no legal eagle, but could our own lawyers have not told our team that based on this, the actions brought were lost before they even began? Surely they should have done their homework?

The 21 day thing is IMO inexcusable. In the light of this, the whole legal action and monies spent does seem even worse than it did before.

I am sure that the lawyers were well aware of the 21 day rule.

[John McKenna]

At the end of the FIDE statement, on their website (linked to on the previous page), it says -
... Despite this positive outcome, and as in the Karpov case lost by the same law firm and funder in 2010...
Did Kasparov fund that case as well as this one?

[Mick Norris]

Nigel Short statement
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... erdict.pdf

[Peter D Williams]

Andrew says
"No.

The information I've received is that the legal costs on our side have already been settled by the third party guarantor and that the funds to cover the CAS settlement have been placed in an account ready to be paid to CAS and FIDE.

The position is as it always was: there will be no financial cost to the ECF arising from the CAS action".[/quote]


Thank you Andrew for your quick answer. Its very good news to know there is no financial cost for the ECF in these uncertain times.