Alleged Bulgarian cheating

[BB+]

t would be interesting to know the composition of the EC in Dainalov's case. But let me guess... it's the five from the EC's web page?

The five listed on the EC page came into office after Tromso 2014 [August], and the complaint was received in "the fall", and indeed from the new Danailov-less ECU Board (elected at Tromso). As I say, I consider it strongly likely that Dobronateanu recused himself. My guess is that Iclicki did not (but who knows). In the EC report for Tromso, there were recusals and demand for such regarding both Kasparov/Leong (5/2014, pg 12) which might give some sense to what principles are held (though the Kasparov complaint here was a bit farcical IMO)..

AFAIK, Strydom and Dominguez Brito are lawyers, Dobronateanu is in the wine industry, Iclicki is a chess organiser/politician, and for Hari Joshi I have no idea (he is the Nepalese Chess Federation president).

The FIDE Code of Ethics (4.5) says "Any decisions made by the Ethics Commission may be the object of appeal arbitration proceedings in accordance with the Code of sports-related arbitration of the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland", so I'm guessing that Strydom does not see the decision on receivability to be a "decision" (rather maybe just a procedural step?), though there is said to be a written motivation for it. I don't know enough about law procedures in general to say whether this kind of thing is immediately appealable, though I do know that in some places the issue of "jurisdiction" is something that can be raised at any time by any party (including by the judges), and indeed takes absolute precendence (including possible appeals to higher courts) until it is resolved. On the other hand, the CAS presumably could decide that the matter was not ripe, and review the EC jurisdiction when the case is complete.

[BB+]

[a jurisdictional matter has] absolute precendence

I meant absolute priority, i.e. it halts all other procedures until it is resolved. Of course, whether a court (or similar body) can address a jurisdictional question is itself a jurisdictional question. [I'm not sure the EC is thinking so self-referentially]. Strydom's comment implies that the matter of receiving a case is thought to be procedural rather than constitutive, and indeed I doubt that Danailov (and other respondents) were given a right to reply as ChessVibes indicates that this is a point in the CAS appeal. [Certainly the ICGA was not allowed to reply (at this stage) in their case, they were simply notified (as per procedural rules) that a complaint against them had been found to be receivable]. My own thinking is that in general the receivability of case should only be appealable based on jurisdictional matters, not on matters of content (which are in any case facts to be determined by the lower "court"). If X claims that Y did Z at a chess event and the EC finds the case receivable, I would venture that the jurisdictional aspect of whether Y is subject to the EC can be immediately appealed, whereas the question of whether Z actually represents a breach of the CoE (as determined contingently by the EC in its decision to receive the case) might be a subject for later appeal. But that's my rather uninformed opinion, and could depend on the exact circumspection of subject-matter jurisdiction regards Z.

[syzygy]

t would be interesting to know the composition of the EC in Dainalov's case. But let me guess... it's the five from the EC's web page?

The five listed on the EC page came into office after Tromso 2014 [August], and the complaint was received in "the fall", and indeed from the new Danailov-less ECU Board (elected at Tromso). As I say, I consider it strongly likely that Dobronateanu recused himself. My guess is that Iclicki did not (but who knows). In the EC report for Tromso, there were recusals and demand for such regarding both Kasparov/Leong (5/2014, pg 12) which might give some sense to what principles are held (though the Kasparov complaint here was a bit farcical IMO)..

OK, so the EC at least considers such issues. I wondered where it would find alternates, but apparently it just continues the case with 1 or 2 persons fewer on the panel. If the US Supreme Court can do that, then so can the EC, I guess.

The FIDE Code of Ethics (4.5) says "Any decisions made by the Ethics Commission may be the object of appeal arbitration proceedings in accordance with the Code of sports-related arbitration of the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland", so I'm guessing that Strydom does not see the decision on receivability to be a "decision" (rather maybe just a procedural step?), though there is said to be a written motivation for it. I don't know enough about law procedures in general to say whether this kind of thing is immediately appealable, though I do know that in some places the issue of "jurisdiction" is something that can be raised at any time by any party (including by the judges), and indeed takes absolute precendence (including possible appeals to higher courts) until it is resolved. On the other hand, the CAS presumably could decide that the matter was not ripe, and review the EC jurisdiction when the case is complete.

If "any decision" can be appealed against, then why not this one. And if it is appealable, not appealing against it now might have the result that the CAS won't hear this issue later.

Strydom seems to equate "decision" with "a decision that concludes the whole case". Maybe the CAS will agree, but unless the CAS has decided such points before, it seems wise of Danailov to appeal now.

From CAS 2008/A/1634:

CAS 2005/A/899:
“In principle, for a communication to be a decision, this communication must contain ruling, whereby the body issuing the decision intends to affect the legal situation of the addressee of the decision or other parties. However, there can also be a decision where the body issues a ruling as to the admissibility or inadmissibility of a request, without addressing the merits of such request”. [Emphasis added]

One could still argue, also in view of the other examples listed in CAS 2008/A/1634, that only a finding of inadmissibility (which concludes the case) constitutes a decision open to appeal and that the wording of the sentence in CAS 2005/A/899 is slightly unfortunate. But CAS 2009/A/1781 again copies this text, so it would be surprising if the CAS now suddenly takes the view that a finding of admissibility is not a decision.

[BB+]

The EC Procedural Rules indicate (#9):

The quorum for the judgment shall be of at least three members.
In the event of an equality of votes, the Chairman of the EC shall have the right to cast the decisive vote.

Note that a previous version of the procedural rules required four members. In the Moroccan arbiters case there were 6 members, of which one was recused [Noureddine Tabbane, a Tunisian who had personal relationships with some members of the Moroccan federation executive board]. In the Topalov case, Wilkinson abstained from voting due to his opinion that refusing extra time (after the Elista tapes were found to have been destroyed) to Topalov/Danailov was prejudicial to their defense. In case 1/07, one of the members was excused due to having judged the case at a prior level (on the CHESSA [South African} Ethics Commitee).

In the Right of the Parties (#6), said procedural rules mention the "final decision", and that an alleged violator has the right to be informed (and to submit memorials) before that occurs. On the other hand, the Code of Ethics refers to "any decisions".

[BB+]

I might say there's also a large amount of overlap between the Constitutional Commission and Ethics Commission. Whether this is a good thing or a worrisome thing is a different matter. There is in general a 2-term (4 years each) limit on commission memberships, but Strydom was on the CC before moving to the EC, while Rivello is now the head of the CC (and was on it from 2010), Iclicki is now on both (previously he was only on the CC), as is Brito. [Incidentally, I think Rivello was also one of the European representatives (there are 4 from each continent if memory serves) on the Executive Board]. Well, maybe there's a lack of lawyers around, and they need some on each the EC and CC.

Anyway, I attached the Constitutional Commission's report to the 2014 Tromso meeting, which (see Annex 61 here) was "approved" (to the extent that the PB can do so) except for points #6 [statutes of affiliated international organisations] [and #7 [proposed limitation of campaign period] at the ensuing Presidential Board meeting. This was in the zip file found here. The first section discussess the proposed Statutory changes to dispute resolutions, notably that the BCF successfully challenged 13.5 and 13.6, and also suggests that an appeal to the ordinary courts of Lausanne be allowed (rather than the CAS), depending on the subject matter involved.

[BB+]

Hmm, as there is no link directly on the FIDE minutes page, I will link to Annex 7 here. It gives the new proposal for Chapter 13 ("Final settlement of disputes"). Note that 13.1 would say a "final... decision" may be appealed. Also, the ordinary Lausanne courts would now be the place to appeal against (say) amendments to FIDE Statutes.

Chapter 13: Final settlement of disputes (addition of new Articles 13.1 to 13.13)
Appeal against sporting or disciplinary decisions of FIDE organs
13.1. Any final sporting or disciplinary decision made by a FIDE organ, or decisions made by the Electoral Commission (Chapter 8, Art. 3.4 of the Statutes) may be disputed exclusively by way of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland, which will resolve the dispute definitively in accordance with the Code of sports-related arbitration. Only parties directly affected by a decision may appeal to the CAS. The time limit for appeal is twenty-one days from the receipt by the appellant of the decision appealed against or, in the case of a decision by FIDE General Assembly, twenty-one days after the decision has been made. The time-limit for appeal against decisions of the Electoral Commission is laid down in Chapter 8, Art. 3.4 of the Statutes.
13.2. Decisions referred to in Article 13.1 include disciplinary sanctions, such as doping or cheating sanctions, sanctions for infringements of the FIDE Code of Ethics and decisions regarding the venue of FIDE events.
13.3. A party may only lodge an appeal to the CAS pursuant to Article 13.1 above if it has exhausted all the internal remedies of FIDE. In this regard, the decisions of the Ethics Commission and the Electoral Commission [and also the GA, according to CC suggestion] relating to matters falling within their respective competencies are final.
13.4. An appeal lodged pursuant to Article 13.1 shall not have suspensive effect unless expressly granted by the CAS upon request of the appellant. The CAS shall not take into account facts or evidence which the appellant could have submitted to an internal FIDE body by acting with reasonable diligence required under the circumstances, but failed or chose not to do so.
13.5. The CAS shall not have jurisdiction to deal with matters related to the application of a purely sporting rule, such as the Laws of the Game or the technical rules of a competition.
13.6. Proceedings before the CAS are governed by FIDE Statutes, regulations and rules and, for the rest, by the Code of sports-related arbitration.
13.7. As regards the law applicable to the merits, the CAS shall apply FIDE Statutes, regulations and rules and, subsidiarily, Swiss substantive law.
13.8. The seat of the arbitration shall be Lausanne. The language of the arbitration shall be English. The decision of the CAS shall be final and binding on the parties.
Appeal against other decisions
13.9. Any decision other than the decisions referred to in Article 13.1 may be submitted exclusively by way of appeal to the ordinary courts in Lausanne, Switzerland, to the exclusion of CAS or of any other court or arbitral tribunal. Only parties directly affected by a decision may appeal to the courts. The decision shall be appealed within one month of learning thereof.
13.10. Decisions within the meaning of Article 13.9 include, among others, decisions regarding the laws of association, amendments of FIDE Statutes, rules and/or regulations, elections of FIDE officials by FIDE General Assembly and/or the electoral process leading to such elections (except for the decisions made by the Electoral Commission; see Chapter 8, Art. 3.4 of the Statutes) and contractual matter between FIDE and member federations, affiliated organisations or third parties.
13.11. A party may only lodge an appeal to the ordinary courts in Lausanne, Switzerland pursuant to Article 13.9 above if it has exhausted all the internal remedies of FIDE.
Other disputes
13.12. The ordinary courts in Lausanne, Switzerland shall have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve disputes between, on the one hand, FIDE and, on the other hand, a member federation or any of its officials, a player, an organiser, an arbiter, a FIDE official, a candidate to any function as FIDE official within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the Statutes or an affiliated organisation in respect of a matter arising out of or in connection with the FIDE Statutes, regulations and rules, or agreements between FIDE and these persons and/or entities.
13.13. The ordinary courts in Lausanne shall apply FIDE Statutes, regulations and rules as well as the substantive law specifically chosen by the parties to govern the merits of the dispute or, in the absence of such a choice, Swiss substantive law.

[BB+]

The ECU has now issued a press release, regarding the impropriety of monies being transferred to a non-ECU bank account.

[BB+]

It's not exactly the ECU but rather the BCF and its relations therein, but Chessdom published the comments from a recent press conference (video).

Dear guests, journalists, and colleagues from the chess world, welcome to this press conference. My name is Metodi Soinev and I am president of Marek Union Ivkoni chess club. With me are the six times national champion GM Kiril Georgiev and Simeon Stoichkov from sports club Ritzar.

The topic of today’s press conference is the large scale corruption at the Bulgarian Chess Federation. All that we will talk today will not be empty words, everything will be based on official documents : mainly the audit done by National Agency for Financial Inspection. All numbers provided will not be commented, just stated as concrete facts.

GM Georgiev: Dear ladies and gentelmen, in the past years strange things have happened in Bulgarian chess. Until recently no one knew about them, even we as chess players had no idea.

Last year the BCF created a scandal. Two open tournaments that are held annually, Albena and Golden Sands, were proclaimed to be European Cups of Chess. Thanks to the newly acquired titled, the Ministry of Sports provided state funding of 220 000 eur. [...] In an official letter by the ECU and its current President Zurab Azmaiparashvili it is confirmed that these events have nothing to do with the European chess calendar and we are facing a major infringement [...]

[terrapene]

It's not exactly the ECU but rather the BCF and its relations therein, but Chessdom published the comments from a recent press conference (video).

Dear guests, journalists, and colleagues from the chess world, welcome to this press conference. My name is Metodi Soinev and I am president of Marek Union Ivkoni chess club. With me are the six times national champion GM Kiril Georgiev and Simeon Stoichkov from sports club Ritzar.

The topic of today’s press conference is the large scale corruption at the Bulgarian Chess Federation. All that we will talk today will not be empty words, everything will be based on official documents : mainly the audit done by National Agency for Financial Inspection. All numbers provided will not be commented, just stated as concrete facts.

GM Georgiev: Dear ladies and gentelmen, in the past years strange things have happened in Bulgarian chess. Until recently no one knew about them, even we as chess players had no idea.

Last year the BCF created a scandal. Two open tournaments that are held annually, Albena and Golden Sands, were proclaimed to be European Cups of Chess. Thanks to the newly acquired titled, the Ministry of Sports provided state funding of 220 000 eur. [...] In an official letter by the ECU and its current President Zurab Azmaiparashvili it is confirmed that these events have nothing to do with the European chess calendar and we are facing a major infringement [...]

BB, just a bunch of rats.
if they were in on the payaola, they would cherish danialov for improving the corrruption to large scale status.

who is auditing the financier inspectors?

[BB+]

Georgiev banned, Danailov "officially nominated" for FIDE 2018 presidential election. Another day at a BCF management board meeting...
Official statement of the BCF

1. In connection with the public deliberate, targeted and coordinated actions and statements of the following persons: Metodi Stoynev, Kiril Georgiev and Simeon Stoitchkov ... the Management Board of the Bulgarian Chess Federation determined their actions as inadmissible, extremely reprehensible and in violation of the Statute and the Code of Ethics of the federation.

Therefore, from 5th of June, 2015, the Management Board deprive of their playing, referee, organizational, club managing and coaching rights in the system of the Bulgarian Chess Federation the above mentioned persons as follows: Metodi Stoynev – for a period of 3 years, Kiril Georgiev – for a period of 3 years, Simeon Stoichkov – for a period of 5 years (due to re exclusion from the system of the Bulgarian Chess Federation).

3. The Management Board of the Bulgarian Chess Federation unanimously decided to nominate officially Mr. Silvio Danailov as candidate for President of the World Chess Federation (FIDE) in the upcoming presidential elections in 2018.