On 14 October 2025, according to a Media Release, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) issued two decisions rejecting requests for urgent provisional measures in two appeals filed by the Israeli Gymnastics Federation (“IGF”) and Israeli gymnasts against the International Gymnastics Federation (“FIG”) following a statement by the Indonesian government that it would not grant visas to Israeli athletes to attend the 53rd FIG Artistic Gymnastics World Championships in Jakarta from 19-25 October 2025. The Indonesian senior legal affairs minister, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, noted that this decision was in line with Indonesia’s policy to cut all ties with Israel until it ensures “the independence and full sovereignty of the state of Palestine.”[1]
The first appeal brought by the IGF alone on 10 October 2025 was against the FIG’s statement “taking note” of the Indonesian government’s decision not to issue visas.
The IGF filed the second appeal along with six Israeli athletes, requesting that the CAS order the FIG to take necessary measures to guarantee Israeli participation in the championships, or, in the alternative, to move or cancel the championships. The IGF argued that the FIG Statutes, presumably Article 26.4 (Assurances Concerning Visas), required the FIG to pass a decision in case entry visas were not granted to all participating delegations. They also alleged that the absence of a decision constituted a denial of justice, discriminating against a member association.
In addition to rejecting both requests for urgent provisional measures, the CAS dismissed the first appeal for lack of jurisdiction. But why was this the outcome?
This note explores the intricacies of requests for provisional measures in CAS arbitration, while speculating on potential reasons for the lack of jurisdiction over the first appeal and the dismissal of the IGF’s request for provisional measures.
Lack of Jurisdiction over the First Appeal
In CAS arbitration, when a request for provisional measures is filed under Article R37 of the CAS Code, the CAS will first rule on whether the CAS has prima facie jurisdiction over the dispute.[2]
As the press release from the CAS referred to the two actions filed by the IGF before the CAS as “appeals”,[3] the procedure followed in this arbitration is most likely that of CAS appeal arbitration.
Article R47 of the CAS Code provides that “[a]n appeal against the decision of a federation, association or sports-related body may be filed with CAS if the statutes or regulations of the said body so provide or if the parties have concluded a specific arbitration agreement and if the Appellant has exhausted the legal remedies available to it prior to the appeal, in accordance with the statutes or regulations of that body.”[4]
Therefore, this requires (1) a decision of a sports body; (2) a provision providing for CAS arbitration in the statutes or regulations of said body or in a specific arbitration agreement; and (3) the available legal remedies have been exhausted prior to appeal.
In this case, it is likely that elements 2 and 3 were not lacking: Article 35 of the FIG Statutes provides that the CAS “is the sole competent authority, with the exclusion of state courts, to adjudicate disputes between FIG and its Member Federations”.[5] Thus, the FIG Statutes provide for CAS arbitration in the case of disputes between member federations, like the IGF, and the FIG, in satisfaction of the second element. Additionally, the Statutes stipulate that the CAS is the sole competent authority, suggesting that no other legal remedies were available to the IGF against the FIG.
Where the jurisdictional defect likely lies in the first appeal is in the first element, the existence of a decision.[6] According to the CAS, a decision is a communication resolving a legal situation or state in a binding manner, that is intended to affect and does affect the addressee.[7]
While the IGF did indeed challenge a communication made by the FIG – the statement released on 10 October 2025, taking note of Indonesia’s decision to deny the Israeli gymnasts’ visas – it is unlikely that CAS considered this communication to have resolved a legal situation or state in a binding manner. Rather, it simply acknowledged a factual circumstance not created by the FIG.
While it may be argued that the FIG’s lack of action regarding the location of the world championships had the legal effect of depriving the IGF’s members of the opportunity to participate, the FIG’s statement itself had no such effect and, further, was not likely intended to.
Therefore, it is likely that the CAS dismissed the first appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it found the “decision” element of the IGF’s claim to be clearly lacking.
It is also worth noting that when deciding on a request for provisional measures, the CAS rules only on prima facie jurisdiction[8] – therefore, it will only entirely dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction if the CAS clearly has no jurisdiction over the dispute. This means that if jurisdiction is lacking for a more nuanced reason, the dispute will nonetheless proceed to full arbitration. This may explain why the first appeal, but not the second, was dismissed at this stage.
The second appeal, unlike the first, was based on a denial of justice, which can be brought based on a lack of a decision by a sports body, as will be discussed in further detail below. This could thus be the reason, at least for prima facie purposes, that the second appeal was not also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Provisional Measures
Next, it is also possible to determine considerations that played a role in the CAS’s decision to deny the IGF’s request for provisional measures in the second appeal.
Under Rule R37 of the CAS Code, when deciding whether to award preliminary relief, the CAS “shall consider whether the relief is necessary to protect the applicant from irreparable harm, the likelihood of success on the merits of the claim, and whether the interests of the Applicant outweigh those of the Respondent(s).”[9]
CAS jurisprudence has consistently demonstrated that these requirements are cumulative and must all be met in order to grant provisional measures.[10]
Relief Necessary to Protect from Irreparable Harm
First, to show that the relief sought is necessary to protect the appellant from irreparable harm, the appellant “must demonstrate that the requested measures are necessary in order to protect his position from damage or risks that would be impossible, or very difficult, to remedy or cancel at a later stage”.[11]
In the IGF’s case, the CAS may have found that this criterion was fulfilled. Absent a ruling ordering the FIG to take action, the Israeli gymnasts would be prevented from competing – a harm that would be impossible to remedy or reverse once the competition had concluded. Thus, it is unlikely that this first element was the reason why the CAS rejected the IGF’s application for provisional measures.
Likelihood of Success
Second, with regard to the likelihood of success, the appellant “must make at least a plausible case that the facts relied on by him and the rights which he seeks to enforce exist and that the material conditions for a legal action are fulfilled”.[12]
Thus, it would be necessary to examine the IGF’s case against the FIG to see whether it could plausibly succeed.
In the IGF’s case, it argued that “the FIG Statutes require the FIG Executive Committee to pass a decision in case entry visas are not granted to all participating delegations” and that “the absence of a decision constitutes a denial of justice, thus creating a situation of discrimination against a member association.”[13]
The CAS has previously clarified that an appeal may indeed be brought for a denial of justice in cases where a sports body refuses or delays the issuance of a decision: “if a body refuses without reasons to issue a decision or delays the issuance of a decision beyond a reasonable period of time, there can be a denial of justice, opening the way for an appeal against the absence of a decision”.[14]
Here, the IGF submitted that “the FIG Statutes require the FIG Executive Committee to pass a decision in case entry visas are not granted to all participating delegations.”[15]
Article 26.4 of the FIG Statutes provides that “Entry visas must be granted to the gymnasts/athletes and to the officials of all Member Federations. In the event that this requirement is not fulfilled, the allocation of the event would be cancelled with immediate effect by the Executive Committee.”[16]
On the basis of this provision, it may be plausibly argued that the Executive Committee is indeed required to issue an immediate decision regarding the cancellation of the event when it becomes apparent that entry visas will not be granted to all member federations. And, given the Executive Committee’s failure to make such a decision to cancel the World Championships, it may also be argued that the issuance of the decision was delayed or denied, perhaps in a denial of justice to the IGF.
However, it is less clear whether the rights that the IGF seeks to enforce indeed exist. The IGF’s second appeal requests, in part, that the FIG be ordered to take the necessary measures that guarantee Israeli participation in the championships.
As the FIG pointed out, “it has no prerogatives in the issuance of entry visas in Indonesia and the fact that Indonesian authorities have refused to grant visas to Israeli individuals falls entirely outside the competence of the FIG.”[17] This is true – an international sports federation has no power to tell a sovereign State that it must grant visas.
Further, the only action foreseen by Article 26.4 of the FIG Statutes is the immediate cancellation of the competition. So, the IGF’s request that the championships be moved likewise has no basis in the FIG Statutes.
Nevertheless, it may be plausibly argued that, on the basis of Article 26.4 of the FIG Statutes, the IGF suffered a denial of justice through the non-cancellation of the world championships in Jakarta by the FIG Executive Committee.
Balancing Interests
Third, to show that the appellant’s interests outweigh those of the respondent, “[i]t is necessary to compare the risks incurred by the Appellant in the event of immediate execution of the decision with the disadvantages for the Respondent in being deprived such execution (balance of convenience or interests).”[18]
In the case of a denial of justice, it is less clear how this test would apply, as there is no decision at risk of immediate execution. Still, it seems that the test would be reversed – it would be necessary to compare the risks incurred by the appellant if a decision were not immediately made with the disadvantages for the respondent in making the decision.
With regard to the balancing of the IGF’s and the FIG’s interests, it is possible that the CAS considered that the interests of the FIG in imminently holding the world championships in Jakarta outweighed the interests of the IGF and its athletes in competing. The CAS has previously recognised that sports bodies have “an undeniable interest in maintaining and ensuring the smooth running and the integrity of [their] competitions.”[19]
In the Football Union of Russia (“FUR”) v. Federation Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”) case, for example, though not in response to an application for provisional measures, the CAS found that compared to the FUR’s interest in participating in the World Cup, “FIFA’s interest of organizing its competitions prevailed when considering, in particular, amendments to the international match calendar a few months ahead of the World Cup 2022 and the security concerns for the organization of a competition in which the Appellant’s national team may participate.”[20] This was within the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and significant outcry from the international sporting community against Russia’s participation in the World Cup.
Here, when the Indonesian government announced that it would deny the Israeli gymnasts’ visas on 10 October 2025, this was only 9 days before the start of the competition on 19 October 2025. Further, the IGF brought its appeal before the CAS on 13 October 2025, only 6 days from the competition.
Compared to the FUR v. FIFA case, where “a few months” was considered to weigh in favour of FIFA’s interests in excluding the FUR, the fact that less than a week remained before the start of the FIG competition and changing its location on such short notice would have prejudiced the other FIG members’ participation may have likewise weighed significantly in the FIG’s favour. This is particularly relevant given that the CAS is likely to also weigh the interests of other third-party athletes against those of the appellant.[21]
Like in FUR v. FIFA, the security element may have also played a role in tipping the balance of interests towards the FIG, as there is growing international outrage over Israel’s occupation of Gaza, and the FIG could have potentially argued that this would raise security concerns.
However, it is unlikely that security considerations would be as significant here as in the FUR v. FIFA case, as, there, many other FIFA members had stated that they would not compete against the FUR and many venues had stated that they would refuse to host the FUR’s team, and it does not appear that there was any such widespread disapproval for the IGF’s participation in the world championships.
Thus, it could be on the basis of this interest-balancing test that the CAS decided to deny the IGF’s application for provisional measures.
Conclusion
While the reasoning behind the orders has not been published, the available information offers a basis for understanding how the CAS may have assessed the absence of a binding decision in the first appeal and the balance of interests in the second. As an intellectual exercise, this analysis helps illustrate the structured, step-by-step approach typically followed by the CAS when addressing urgent relief, even in circumstances involving sensitive political or logistical considerations.
In any event, as the IGF’s second appeal advances to a final award, it will be an interesting case to watch, particularly now that the world championships have already taken place. The relief requested by the IGF – that FIG take the necessary measures that guarantee Israeli participation in the championships, or, in the alternative, to move or to cancel the championships – is no longer possible, potentially rendering the entire appeal moot.
[1] Reuters, Indonesia denies visas to Israel gymnasts amid Gaza outcry, 10 October 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/indonesia-denies-visas-israel-gymnasts-amid-gaza-outcry-2025-10-10/ (last accessed 24 October 2025).
[2] CAS Code, Article R37 (Provisional and Conservatory Measures).
[3] Media Release: The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Rejects Two Requests for Provisional Measures Filed by the Israel Gymnastics Federation, 14 October 2025.
[4] CAS Code, Article R47 (Appeal).
[5] FIG Statutes, Article 35 (Disputes Within the FIG).
[6] See S. Manarakis, Provisional Measures by CAS/TAS, https://www.lexferenda.gr/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Provisional-Measures-by-CAS.pdf (last accessed 24 October 2025), p. 5.
[7] C. Hendel, Jurisdiction of the CAS – The Basics, 2017(1) International Arbitration Insights: CAS & Lex Sportiva, p. 13; Arbitration CAS 2005/A/899 FC Aris Thessaloniki v. FIFA & New Panionios N.F.C., award of 15 July 2005, para. 12.
[8] CAS Code, Article R37 (Provisional and Conservatory Measures) (“The President of the relevant Division or the Panel shall issue an order on an expedited basis and shall first rule on the prima facie CAS jurisdiction.”).
[9] CAS Code, Article R37 (Provisional and Conservatory Measures).
[10] CAS 2011/A/2479 Patrik Sinkewitz v. UCI, order of 8 July 2011, para. 4.
[11] CAS 2011/A/2479 Patrik Sinkewitz v. UCI, order of 8 July 2011, para. 4(b).
[12] CAS 2003/O/486 Fulham FC / Olympique Lyonnais, preliminary award of 15 September 2003, para. 17.
[13] Media Release: The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Rejects Two Requests for Provisional Measures Filed by the Israel Gymnastics Federation, 14 October 2025.
[14] Arbitration CAS 2005/A/944 FC Aris Thessaloniki v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), award of 7 June 2006, para. 7.
[15] Media Release: The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Rejects Two Requests for Provisional Measures Filed by the Israel Gymnastics Federation, 14 October 2025.
[16] FIG Statutes, Article 26.4 (Assurances Concerning Visas).
[17] Media Release: The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Rejects Two Requests for Provisional Measures Filed by the Israel Gymnastics Federation, 14 October 2025.
[18] CAS 2003/O/486 Fulham FC / Olympique Lyonnais, preliminary award of 15 September 2003, para. 17.
[19] CAS 2022/A/8708 Football Union of Russia (FUR) v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) et al., order on request for provisional measures of 8 April 2022, para. 103; S. Manarakis, Provisional Measures by CAS/TAS, https://www.lexferenda.gr/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Provisional-Measures-by-CAS.pdf (last accessed 24 October 2025), p. 10.
[20] CAS 2022/A/8708 Football Union of Russia v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association et al., arbitral award of 25 November 2022, para. 158.
[21] CAS 2025/A/11755 World Athletics v. Ethiopian National Anti-Doping Office and Diribe Welteji Kejelcha, order on request for provisional measures of 12 September 2025, para. 58.