In Decisions <span class="news-text_italic-underline">4A_510/2024</span> and <span class="news-text_italic-underline">4A_512/2024</span>, the Swiss Supreme Court upheld applications to revise a Court of Arbitration for Sport (“<span class="news-text_medium">CAS</span>”) arbitral award that had deprived US gymnast Jordan Chiles of her bronze medal in the women’s artistic gymnastics floor final at the 2024 Olympic Games. The Court annulled the award and referred the case back to the CAS for reconsideration. In a separate decision issued on the same day (Decision <span class="news-text_italic-underline">4A_494/2024</span>), the Court dismissed an application to set aside the same award.
Under Article 190(1) of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Swiss Private International Law Act</span> (“<span class="news-text_medium">PILA</span>”), an arbitral award is final once communicated to the parties. PILA permits challenges to Swiss-seated arbitral awards on limited grounds, including improper constitution of the tribunal or violations of the right to be heard (Article 190(2)(a) and (d)). Separately, a request for revision may be brought where, after the award is rendered, a party discovers evidence which it could not have invoked earlier despite exercising due diligence and which is objectively capable of changing the outcome (Article 190a(1)(a) PILA). Evidence created after the award is excluded.
Under the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">CAS Ad Hoc Rules</span> applicable to Olympic Games disputes, the panel may notify the operative part of the award before issuing reasons. Such notification renders the award immediately enforceable and final, subject to limited recourse under Swiss law. Similar provisions appear in the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">CAS Code</span>, reflecting the need for swift resolution of disputes during the Olympic Games.
Jordan Chiles was initially awarded the bronze medal following her coach’s oral inquiry under the FIG Technical Regulations, which resulted in an increased score. The Romanian Gymnastics Federation commenced arbitration before the CAS Ad Hoc Division, alleging that the inquiry was submitted four seconds outside the 60-second time limit prescribed by the regulations.
The presiding arbitrator disclosed that he represented Romania in unrelated investment treaty arbitrations. Due to notification errors by CAS, Jordan Chiles and USA Gymnastics (the “<span class="news-text_medium">US Parties</span>”) were informed of the proceedings only after they had commenced, leaving them limited time to prepare submissions. Although informed of the existence of the arbitrator’s disclosure, they neither received nor requested its contents.
Relying on a timing report that recorded when the inquiry was registered rather than when it was orally made, the CAS panel concluded that the inquiry was out of time and issued an award withdrawing the medal. Shortly after notification of the operative part of the award—but before the fully reasoned award was issued—audio-visual evidence emerged indicating that the inquiry had been made within the permitted time. The US Parties requested the panel to reopen proceedings, but CAS refused on the basis that the award had already acquired res judicata effect.
Jordan Chiles applied to set aside the award on the grounds of improper constitution of the tribunal and violation of her right to be heard. Separately, the US Parties sought revision of the award based on the newly discovered evidence. Other challenges brought by Romanian parties were also dismissed. The Court rejected the set-aside application. It held that the challenge to the presiding arbitrator was inadmissible due to a failure to comply with the Swiss duty of inquisitiveness.
Having been informed of the existence of a disclosure, Jordan Chiles should have sought further details or reviewed the arbitrator’s publicly available professional profile. In any event, the Court found no conflict of interest, as representing Romania in unrelated investment arbitrations did not establish a relationship with the Romanian Gymnastics Federation or athletes, nor a financial or personal interest in the dispute.
The alleged violation of the right to be heard was also dismissed. The Court held that, under the applicable <span class="news-text_italic-underline">CAS Ad Hoc Rules</span>, the award became final upon notification of the operative part. While the time limit for challenges runs from notification of the reasons, the operative part itself carries binding res judicata effect. Accordingly, CAS was not entitled to reopen proceedings to consider evidence submitted after that notification.
By contrast, the Court upheld the US Parties’ requests for revision. While reaffirming the “field of play doctrine”, which limits judicial scrutiny of technical sporting decisions, the Court held that the exceptional circumstances justified revision in this case. The newly discovered audio-visual evidence was prima facie decisive and capable of altering the outcome in favour of the US Parties.
The Court emphasised that it was not required to assess the reliability of the evidence at this stage; that assessment was a matter for the arbitral tribunal on remission. Although the recording itself was compiled after notification of the operative part, the underlying footage was created during the event and the Court found no lack of diligence on the part of the US Parties. The award was therefore annulled and remitted to CAS for reconsideration.
This decision marks the first occasion on which the Swiss Supreme Court has addressed when an arbitral award notified in two stages becomes final under Swiss law. The Court avoided articulating a general rule applicable to all arbitrations, instead grounding its reasoning in the specific procedural framework governing CAS Ad Hoc proceedings. It confirmed that, in such cases, the appropriate remedy where decisive evidence emerges after notification of the operative part is revision rather than set-aside.
The judgment also reiterates the Court’s strict approach to challenges based on arbitrator independence, underscoring the importance of parties conducting basic enquiries at an early stage or risk forfeiting their right to object.
<span class="news-text_medium">Cases:</span> Decisions <span class="news-text_italic-underline">4A_494/2024</span> and <span class="news-text_italic-underline">4A_510/2024 / 4A_512/2024</span>, Swiss Supreme Court, 23 January 2026 (decisions available in French).
