ATHLETES’ FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE PRINCIPLE OF OLYMPIC NEUTRALITY: THE CASE OF UKRAINIAN ATHLETE AND SYMBOL OF RESISTANCE VLADYSLAV HERASKEVYCH

Abstract

Background: This paper examines the tension between athletes’ freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the principle of political neutrality within the Olympic Movement. It focuses on the case of Ukrainian skeleton athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych at the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic Games, where he was excluded from competition after insisting on wearing a helmet depicting Ukrainian athletes killed during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The case raises broader questions concerning the extent to which symbolic and humanitarian expression by athletes may be restricted under the Olympic regulatory framework.

Method: The study adopts a qualitative doctrinal legal methodology based on systematic document analysis, comparative case-law review, and proportionality-based reasoning. It examines Rule 40.2 and Rule 50.2 of the Olympic Charter, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Expression Guidelines, relevant decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The proportionality test developed under Article 10 ECHR—legality, suitability, necessity, and proportionality stricto sensu—is applied to assess the compatibility of the restriction imposed on Heraskevych with human-rights standards.

Results and Conclusions: The analysis demonstrates that the existing IOC regulatory framework permits considerable discretion in determining when athlete expression constitutes prohibited political expression. The Heraskevych case illustrates how peaceful symbolic or humanitarian gestures may be classified as political depending on their context. The paper argues that the relationship between Rule 40.2, Rule 50.2, and the IOC Expression Guidelines creates concerns regarding foreseeability and legal certainty. It further questions whether the objective of preserving political neutrality can justify a particularly severe interference with freedom of expression concerning matters of significant public interest, including armed conflict, human loss, and human rights. The paper concludes that the current framework does not sufficiently satisfy the requirements of legal certainty and proportionality under Article 10 ECHR and advocates a clearer and more balanced distinction between harmful political propaganda and peaceful humanitarian expression by athletes.