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)..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?
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.