CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11933 — Saudi Climbing and Hiking Federation (SCHF) v. International Federation of Sport Climbing (IFSC) / World Climbing

"SCHF v. IFSC" · CAS upheld IFSC Disciplinary Commission's refusal to proceed, finding it lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae over a private training-camp incident.

What happened in SCHF v. IFSC

On 11 July 2024, Saudi athlete Sarah Alqunaybit suffered serious injuries — fractures to both feet and three vertebrae — during a private training camp at the Grimper SA Climbing Gym in Switzerland, organised by the SCHF in preparation for the IFSC World Cup – Seoul 2024. The SCHF alleged that coach Ludovic Claude Laurence, who held a valid IFSC licence at the time, negligently belayed her. On 16 April 2025 the SCHF filed a formal complaint before the IFSC Disciplinary Commission. On 23 October 2025 the Commission declined to initiate formal disciplinary proceedings, citing the coach's lack of a current IFSC licence and cessation of coaching activities; it instead issued safety recommendations to National Federations and placed a five-year note in the coach's licence file. The SCHF appealed to CAS on 6 November 2025. CAS dismissed the appeal, confirming the outcome of the Appealed Decision but on different grounds: the IFSC Disciplinary Commission lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae because the incident occurred at a private, non-IFSC-sanctioned event. The case matters because it authoritatively delineates the boundary between International Federation disciplinary competence and National Federation authority over domestic training activities.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11933

On 16 April 2025 the SCHF lodged a formal complaint against coach Laurence before the IFSC Disciplinary Commission, requesting he be barred from IFSC events. On 23 October 2025 the IFSC Disciplinary Commission issued the Appealed Decision, declining to initiate formal disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the coach no longer held a current IFSC licence and had ceased coaching activities; it issued general safety recommendations to National Federations and placed a five-year note in the coach's licence file. On 6 November 2025 the SCHF filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code (2025 edition), also requesting a stay under Article R37. The stay was rejected on 28 January 2026. A videoconference hearing was held on 13 February 2026. CAS was asked to annul the Appealed Decision, declare the Commission had jurisdiction ratione temporis, and order IFSC to open formal disciplinary proceedings.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11933

• The IFSC Disciplinary Commission's jurisdiction ratione materiae is limited to conduct occurring during or in connection with IFSC-sanctioned events, as established by the IFSC Statutes, IFSC Disciplinary Rules, and the Terms of Reference of the Disciplinary Commission.
• The IFSC Disciplinary Commission lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae over the incident of 11 July 2024 because the Training Camp was a private event neither organised, sanctioned, funded, nor otherwise associated with the IFSC.
• A coach holding a valid IFSC licence at the time of an incident does not, by itself, establish jurisdiction of the IFSC Disciplinary Commission in the absence of a sufficient nexus between the conduct and IFSC-regulated activities.
• The IFSC Safeguarding Policy does not constitute an autonomous source of disciplinary jurisdiction and cannot extend the IFSC Disciplinary Commission's competence beyond the limits established in the IFSC Statutes and IFSC Disciplinary Rules.
• Although the Appealed Decision's reasoning — based on the coach's lack of a current licence and cessation of coaching — was not endorsed by the Panel, its operative outcome was upheld on the distinct ground of lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel applied the objective, law-like interpretive approach established in CAS jurisprudence, starting from the wording of the relevant provisions and considering their context, purpose, and regulatory structure. It read Article 14.4 of the IFSC Statutes together with Appendix 2 (Terms of Reference) of the IFSC Disciplinary Rules, concluding that the Commission's competence extends only to 'Athletes and Team Officials participating in IFSC-sanctioned events at all levels' and that coaches fall within its remit only when carrying out functions 'in relation to IFSC' — meaning within the IFSC's institutional and regulatory sphere, not merely in a functionally preparatory capacity. The Panel rejected the Appellant's ratione temporis argument, finding that the coach's licence status was irrelevant where jurisdiction ratione materiae was absent from the outset. It also rejected the argument that Article 3.3 of the IFSC Safeguarding Policy — which allows for limited application outside IFSC activities where conduct impacts the IFSC work and sport environment — could independently ground jurisdiction, holding that the Safeguarding Policy defines conduct standards but is not an autonomous jurisdictional source. Extending jurisdiction to private training camps would, the Panel found, unduly expand the IFSC's regulatory reach to domestic environments worldwide, contrary to the wording and structure of the applicable rules and the division of responsibilities between International and National Federations.

Why SCHF v. IFSC matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award authoritatively establishes that the IFSC Disciplinary Commission's jurisdiction is confined to conduct occurring within IFSC-sanctioned events and activities, and that neither a coach's IFSC licence status nor the broad language of the IFSC Safeguarding Policy can independently ground jurisdiction over private, domestically organised training camps. It reinforces the structural division of disciplinary competence between International Federations and National Federations in international sport, consistent with the Panel's reading of CAS 2017/A/5131 and CAS 2019/A/6274.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2025/A/11161 CAS 2025/A/11213 CAS 2020/A/7008-7009 CAS 2019/A/6274 CAS 2017/A/5131 CAS 2013/A/3052

Frequently asked questions about SCHF v. IFSC

Did the IFSC have jurisdiction to discipline a coach for an injury at a private training camp before an IFSC World Cup?

No. The CAS Panel held that the IFSC Disciplinary Commission's jurisdiction ratione materiae is limited to conduct occurring during or in connection with IFSC-sanctioned events. Because the 11 July 2024 training camp at the Grimper SA Climbing Gym was organised solely by the SCHF and was neither sanctioned, funded, nor otherwise associated with the IFSC, the Commission lacked competence regardless of the coach's licence status.

Does holding a valid IFSC licence at the time of an incident give the IFSC Disciplinary Commission jurisdiction over that incident?

Not by itself. The Panel found that even assuming coach Laurence held a valid IFSC licence on 11 July 2024, this would not suffice to establish jurisdiction in the absence of a sufficient nexus between the conduct and IFSC-regulated activities. Licence status is relevant to jurisdiction ratione personae but cannot cure a fundamental absence of jurisdiction ratione materiae.

Can the IFSC Safeguarding Policy extend IFSC disciplinary jurisdiction to incidents outside IFSC events?

Only to a very limited extent. The Panel acknowledged that Article 3.3 of the IFSC Safeguarding Policy allows for application outside IFSC activities where conduct impacts the IFSC work and sport environment, but held that this provision does not constitute an autonomous source of disciplinary jurisdiction. Any referral to the IFSC Disciplinary Commission must remain subject to the jurisdictional limits in the IFSC Statutes and IFSC Disciplinary Rules.

Who has jurisdiction over a safety incident at a national team training camp that is not connected to an IFSC event?

The relevant National Federation. The Panel noted that conduct occurring in national training activities typically falls within the competence of the relevant National Federation under its own rules and disciplinary framework. This is also reflected in Article 4.2 of the IFSC Safeguarding Policy, which requires National Federations to draw up their own safeguarding policies, manage incident reports, and impose disciplinary sanctions at national level.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.