Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CAS: An Overview

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Court of Arbitration for Sport and Its Jurisprudence

Part of the book series: ASSER International Sports Law Series ((ASSER))

Abstract

Each time a case is referred to CAS a new arbitration panel is formed to resolve the specific dispute at hand. While each panel is independent of each other they operate within a shared organizational and regulatory framework. This framework provides panels with the power to issue binding and enforceable awards, but also governs how they may exercise this power. This chapter introduces the organizational and regulatory framework governing CAS. This includes the CAS Code which, among other things, governs CAS’s organization, jurisdiction , and the formation of panels. The chapter also provides a general description of what characterizes the cases that come before CAS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    CAS is since 2005 housed in Château de Béthusy.

  2. 2.

    Article S1 CAS Code.

  3. 3.

    Article R28 CAS Code; Kaufmann-Kohler and Bärtsch 2006, p. 79.

  4. 4.

    See Article S6, point 8, CAS Code.

  5. 5.

    SFT ’s decision 15 March 1993 in case 4P.217/1992, ATF 119 II 271 (Gundel v. FEI). See also further Sect. 3.3.

  6. 6.

    Article S2 CAS Code.

  7. 7.

    See also Sect. 3.3.

  8. 8.

    Article S4 CAS Code.

  9. 9.

    Article S6 CAS Code.

  10. 10.

    Article R33 CAS Code.

  11. 11.

    Article S13 CAS Code.

  12. 12.

    See Sect. 8.2.

  13. 13.

    See below Sect. 2.2.

  14. 14.

    Article S6 CAS Code.

  15. 15.

    See below Sect. 2.3.

  16. 16.

    See Sect. 8.5.

  17. 17.

    Article R28 CAS Code.

  18. 18.

    Article 176(1) PILA . However, domestic disputes, i.e. disputes between parties that are domiciled or reside habitually in Switzerland, are governed by the Swiss Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

  19. 19.

    Article R27 CAS Code. For an excellent commentary of these rules, see Mavromati and Reeb 2015.

  20. 20.

    Article S6 CAS Code.

  21. 21.

    Blackaby et al. 2015, p. 12.

  22. 22.

    Article 7(1) UNCITRAL Model Law.

  23. 23.

    Article V New York Convention ; Article 190(2)(b) PILA .

  24. 24.

    Article R27, R38, and R48 CAS Code . However, as highlighted by e.g. the Pechstein-case, athletes in practise have limited power over or alternative to agreeing to arbitration if they wish to compete. See BGH’s decision 7 June 2016 in case KZR 6/15 (Pechstein v. ISU), para 56. This casts doubt over the consensual basis of CAS’s jurisdiction in many cases. See Duval 2017. See also below Sect. 2.2.

  25. 25.

    Articles R45 and R58 CAS Code.

  26. 26.

    See Article R58 CAS Code.

  27. 27.

    Article 191(2) PILA . See also Kaufmann-Kohler and Bärtsch 2006, p. 80; Rigozzi 2010.

  28. 28.

    Article 190(2) PILA .

  29. 29.

    Dasser and Wójtowicz 2016, pp. 283–284 (noting that the success-rate for challenges of awards in the SFT is higher for sports-related than non-sport-related arbitration).

  30. 30.

    See e.g. immediately above regarding Gundel and Chap. 7. An illustrative example is SFT ’s decision 27 March 2012 in case 4A_558/2011 (Matuzalem v. FIFA), para 4.5.3.

  31. 31.

    Cf. SFT ’s decision 15 March 1993 in case 4P.217/1992, ATF 119 II 271 (Gundel v. FEI); SFT’s decision 27 May 2003 in case 4P.267/2002, ATF 129 III 445 (Lazutina & Danilova v. IOC), at p. 463, para 3.3.4 (“le TAS est suffisamment indépendant du CIO, comme de toutes les autres parties qui font appel à ses services, pour que les décisions qu’il rend dans les causes intéressant cet organisme puissent être considérées comme de véritables sentences, assimilables aux jugements d’un tribunal étatique.”).

  32. 32.

    Article II(3) of the New York Convention . See also Mitten and Opie 2010, pp. 302–303; Blackshaw 2013, p. 16 (discussing examples from national courts).

  33. 33.

    Article III of the New York Convention .

  34. 34.

    Article V of the New York Convention .

  35. 35.

    Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention .

  36. 36.

    IBA 2015, pp. 15–18.

  37. 37.

    See e.g. Case C-126/97, Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton International NV, EU:C:1999:269, paras 36, 39; Joined Cases C-295-298/04, Manfredi et al. v. Assitalia SpA., EU:C:2006:461, paras 31, 39; Case C-8/08, T-Mobile Netherlands BV et al. v. Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit, EU:C:2009:343, para 49.

  38. 38.

    A current example of this is the case of Pechstein v. ISU, e.g. BGH’s decision 7 June 2016 in case KZR 6/15; OLG München’s decision 15 January 2015 in case 1110/14 Kart.

  39. 39.

    Article 61 IOC Charter.

  40. 40.

    See Yi 2006, p. 293 (reproducing the agreement for the 2004 Olympic Summer Games ).

  41. 41.

    Simma 2006, p. 26.

  42. 42.

    Cf. Reeb 2004, xxiv. However, as illustrated by e.g. Cour d’appel Bruxelles’s decision 29 August 2018 in case 2016/AR/2048 (Doyen Sports et al. v. URBSFA et al.), paras 14–17, national courts may decline to recognize and enforce overly broad general arbitration clause s.

  43. 43.

    Of the CAS decisions studied in full text, 17% of the decisions issued under Ordinary Arbitration Procedure concern doping and other disciplinary matters. This compares to almost 60% for CAS decisions issued under Appellate Arbitration Procedure. See also Mitten and Opie 2010, p. 286; Reilly 2012, p. 64.

  44. 44.

    Paulsson 1993, p. 368; Pinna 2006, p. 388. See also Chap. 10.

  45. 45.

    Rule S12 CAS Code.

  46. 46.

    CAS, Statistics 2016. Depending on the year, another 2–4% of all requests fall under the Ad Hoc Procedure .

  47. 47.

    For example, following the CAS’s own subject matter classification, nearly 12% of all appellate cases studied concern contractual matters and a nearly equal portion concern transfer-related matters.

  48. 48.

    Paulsson 1993, p. 368.

  49. 49.

    See SFT ’s decision 22 March 2007 in case 4P.172/2006, ATF 133 III 235 (Cañas v. ATP Tour), at p. 243 (“Ainsi l’athlète qui souhaite participer à une compétition organisée sous le contrôle d’une fédération sportive dont la réglementation prévoit le recours à l’arbitrage n’aura-t-il d’autre choix que d’accepter la clause arbitrale, notamment en adhérant aux statuts de la fédération sportive en question dans lesquels ladite clause a été insérée, à plus forte raison s’il s’agit d’un sportif professionnel. Il sera confronté au dilemme suivant: consentir à l’arbitrage ou pratiquer son sport en dilettante.”); CAS 2009/A/1782, Volandri, para 70; ECtHR ’s decision of 2 October 2018 in Mutu & Pechstein v. Switzerland, app. no. 40575/10 & 67474/10, paras 113–115. See also Rigozzi 2010, pp. 226–228.

  50. 50.

    Article R47 CAS Code .

  51. 51.

    See e.g. Article 35(1) ECHR .

  52. 52.

    Article R27 CAS Code.

  53. 53.

    Ibid.

  54. 54.

    Kane 2003a; Reeb 2004, p. xxxiii; Yi 2006, p. 294.

  55. 55.

    Article R60 CAS Code (2004).

  56. 56.

    McLaren 2006, pp. 180–181. See also Blackshaw 2013, p. 14 (comparing it to commercial “expert determinations”).

  57. 57.

    See e.g. Article 267 TFEU (giving the CJEU jurisdiction to issue preliminary rulings); Protocol 16 to the ECHR (providing the ECtHR jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions) (not yet in force).

  58. 58.

    Articles R60 and R61 CAS Code (2004).

  59. 59.

    McLaren 2006, pp. 183–186.

  60. 60.

    CAS, Statistics 2016.

  61. 61.

    See also Mavromati 2016.

  62. 62.

    Articles 3–4 Arbitration Rules applicable to the CAS ad hoc division for the Olympic Games .

  63. 63.

    Article 11 Arbitration Rules applicable to the CAS ad hoc division for the Olympic Games . While the Division President has the discretion to appoint a sole arbitrator this rarely occurred during the studied period, the notable exceptions being OG 06/003, Azzimani; OG 12/011, ROC v. ISAF. However, it can be noted that it was more common during the 2016 Rio Olympic Summer Games, possibly due to an extraordinary high number of disputes.

  64. 64.

    According to Blackshaw, 85% of referred disputes are resolved through mediation. Blackshaw 2006, p. 2. See also Kane 2003b.

  65. 65.

    Articles S13 and S14 CAS Code.

  66. 66.

    See also Article R33 CAS Code.

  67. 67.

    Article S18 CAS Code.

  68. 68.

    Article R40.1 CAS Code.

  69. 69.

    Article R40.2 CAS Code.

  70. 70.

    Cf. Krähe 2006, p. 102.

  71. 71.

    Article R50 CAS Code.

  72. 72.

    Article R54 CAS Code.

  73. 73.

    See above Sect. 2.2. Cf. Anderson 2010, p. 88.

  74. 74.

    There are a number of different, alternative methods for identifying and classifying the issues that appear in CAS jurisprudence. See further Chap. 6. In this section, however, I will exclusively use the subject matter classification provided by CAS in its jurisprudence database.

  75. 75.

    See below Fig. 2.1 Subject Matters and Sports.

  76. 76.

    This includes for example wakeboard, netball, modern pentathlon, and billiards.

  77. 77.

    In Fig. 2.1 Subject Matters and Sports above, these 52 sports have been grouped together under the heading “Other” to improve readability.

  78. 78.

    Like many other things in CAS jurisprudence, the distribution of decisions among sports follow a power law distribution. See further Sect. 5.2.

  79. 79.

    See above Fig. 2.1 Subject Matters and Sports (football 315 decisions, cycling 91 decisions, athletics 64 decisions, swimming 47 decisions, and equestrian sports 43 decisions).

  80. 80.

    Cf. Reilly 2012, p. 69 (“Of the cases heard at CAS, approximately 45% relate to appeals rendered by an organ of [FIFA ].”). This was not always the case. In 2005, the number of football-related disputes in CAS jumped drastically. The impact of football ’s dominance is analyzed in greater detail in Sect. 3.3.

  81. 81.

    See above Fig. 2.1 Subject Matters and Sports (contracts 11.3%, disciplinary 10.3%, transfers 10.3%, and eligibility 9.0%). The remaining approximately 15% are split among a variety of subjects that include nationality-related disputes and governance .

  82. 82.

    See above Fig. 2.1 Subject Matters and Sports. The dataset only includes 33 CAS decisions concerning doping in football . If the number was proportional to the number of doping cases in the entire dataset, there would be 142 or more than four times as many decisions concerning doping in football.

  83. 83.

    See Davies et al. 2014.

  84. 84.

    See above Fig. 2.1 Subject Matters and Sports.

  85. 85.

    Whether this is actually the case and conditions in other sports are significantly different requires further research.

References

  • Anderson J (2010) Modern Sports Law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackaby N, Partasides C, Redfern A, Hunter M (2015) Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackshaw I (2006) Introductory Remarks. In: Blackshaw I, Siekman R, Soek J (eds) The Court of Arbitration for Sport 1984–2004. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackshaw I (2013) ADR and Sport: Settling Disputes Through the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, and the WIPO Arbitration & Mediation Center. Marquette Sports Law Review 24(1):1–57

    Google Scholar 

  • CAS (2016) Statistics 2016. http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_statistics_2016_pdf. Accessed 7 September 2018

  • Dasser F, Wójtowicz P (2016) Challenges of Swiss Arbitral Awards: Updated and Extended Statistical Data as of 2015. ASA Bulletin 34(2):280–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies T, Vernon M, Schofield J (2014) Is sport doing enough to catch drug cheats? In: Palmer C (ed) The Sports Monograph: Critical Perspectives on Socio-Cultural Sport, Coaching and Physical Education. SSTO Publications, Preston, pp. 65–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Duval A (2017) Not in My Name! Claudia Pechstein and the Post-Consensual Foundations of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law (MPIL) Research Paper No. 2017-01. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2920555. 7 September 2018.

  • IBA (2015) Report on the Public Policy Exception in the New York Convention. Report by the Subcommittee on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, October 2015. https://www.ibanet.org/LPD/Dispute_Resolution_Section/Arbitration/Recogntn_Enfrcemnt_Arbitl_Awrd/publicpolicy15.aspx. Accessed 7 September 2018

  • Kane D (2003a) Twenty Years On: An Evaluation of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Melbourne Journal of International Law 4:611–635

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane O (2003b) The CAS Mediation Rules. The International Sports Law Journal 2003(1):33–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann-Kohler G, Bärtsch P (2006) The Ordinary Arbitration Procedure of the CAS. In: Blackshaw I, Siekman R, Soek J (eds) The Court of Arbitration for Sport 1984–2004. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 69–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Krähe C (2006) The Appeals Procedure before the CAS. In: Blackshaw I, Siekman R, Soek J (eds) The Court of Arbitration for Sport 1984–2004. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 99–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavromati D (2016) The Rules governing the CAS Anti-Doping and Ad Hoc Divisions at the Olympic Games, 29 August 2016. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2816482. Accessed 6 July 2018

  • Mavromati D, Reeb M (2015) The Code of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: Commentary, Cases and Materials. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaren R (2006) CAS Advisory Opinions. In: Blackshaw I, Siekman R, Soek J (eds) The Court of Arbitration for Sport 1984–2004. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 180–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitten M J, Opie H (2010) ‘Sports Law’: Implications for the Development of International, Comparative, and National Law and Global Dispute Resolution. Tulane Law Review 85:269–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulsson J (1993) Arbitration of International Sports Disputes. Arbitration International 9(4):359–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinna A (2006) The Trials and Tribulations of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: Contribution to the Study of the Arbitration of Disputes Concerning Disciplinary Sanctions. In: Blackshaw I, Siekman R, Soek J (eds) The Court of Arbitration for Sport 1984–2004. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 386–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeb M (2004) The Court of Arbitration for Sport: History and Operation. In: Reeb M (ed) Digest of CAS Awards III, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp. xxvii–xxxv

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly L (2012) An Introduction to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the Role of National Courts in International Sports Disputes. Journal of Dispute Resolution 2012(1):63–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigozzi A (2010) Challenging Awards of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 1(1):217–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (2006) The Court of Arbitration for Sport. In: Blackshaw I, Siekman R, Soek J (eds) The Court of Arbitration for Sport 1984–2004. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 21–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Yi D (2006) Turning Medals into Metal: Evaluating the Court of Arbitration for Sport as an International Tribunal. Asper Review of International Business and Trade Law 6:289–341

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    Johan Lindholm

Authors
  1. Johan Lindholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johan Lindholm .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lindholm, J. (2019). CAS: An Overview. In: The Court of Arbitration for Sport and Its Jurisprudence. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-285-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-285-9_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-284-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-285-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation