(CAS) Bulletin - Tribunal Arbitral du Sport / TAS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

implication of this case is that, provided the parties to a CAS arbitration agreement properly invoke the Australian state arbitration laws, the lex sportiva being developed by the CAS has the potential to displace contrary Australian laws. Because one of the primary objectives of establishing a private legal regime to resolve international sports disputes is to create a uniform body of lex sportiva that is predictable and evenly applied worldwide 98 , it is problematic if CAS awards are not judicially reviewed pursuant to a generally accepted international standard 99 . Because Olympic and international sports competition occurs on a global basis and involves consensual (and often long-term) relationships, universally accepted rules and dispute resolution methods appear to be necessary 100 . On the other hand, the displacement of sovereign national law by lex sportiva raises important issues worthy of scholarly study 101 . For example, 98. See, e.g., Arbitration CAS 2007/A/1298, Wigan Athletic FC v. Heart of Midlothian, award of Jan. 30, 2008, para. 64 (“[I]t is in the interest of football that solutions to compensation be based on uniform criteria rather than on provisions of national law that may vary considerably from country to country ....”). 99. Yi, supra note 6, at 301-02 (“Olympic institutions, as a practical matter, simply cannot defend its myriad of decisions in the courts of every single member nation.”). In 2005, a Swiss court in the canton of Vaud granted a preliminary injunction that suspended a CAS award upholding a two-year disciplinary suspension imposed by the International Cycling Union (UCI) on Danilo Hondo, a German cyclist, for his usage of a banned stimulant. Hondo owned a home in the canton of Vaud, and his lawsuit was based on an obscure Swiss law that permitted a Swiss resident to challenge judicially a Swiss arbitration award (e.g., a CAS award) in the canton in which he resided. He asserted that the UCI’s strict liability doping rules, which provided for an automatic two-year suspension for a fi rst offense, violated Swiss law. Yi, supra note 6, at 337-39. The Appeals Chamber of the Court for the Canton of Vaud, as well as the SFT, ultimately upheld the CAS award, which required Hondo to serve a two-year suspension for his doping violation. Decision X [Danilo Hondo] v. AMA et consorts & TAS, 4P.148/2006 of 10 Jan. 2007, ASA Bull. 2007, p. 569 (English translation available at http://translate.google.com/translate? hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%C2 F%C2Fwww.polyreg.ch%C2Fd%C2Finformationen%C2Fbgeunpubliziert%®Ja hr_2006%2FEntscheide_4P_2006%2F4P.148__2006.html). Nevertheless, it is problematic to give a Swiss local court judicial authority to nullify a CAS award affecting Swiss residents based on its application of Swiss law; whereas, non-Swiss residents are required to seek vacation of a CAS award by the SFT on much narrower grounds. 100. See generally MITTEN, supra note 5, at 64-67. In his book, How Soccer Explains The World, Franklin Foer hypothesizes that Americans’ like or dislike of soccer, Europe’s most popular sport, refl ects their differing views regarding globalization. Franklin Foer, How Soccer Explains the World (2004). Those who like soccer believe “in the essential tenets of the globalization religion as preached by European politicians, that national governments should defer to institutions like the UN and WTO”. Id. at 245. Those who do not believe “that America’s history and singular form of government has given the nation a unique role to play in the world; that the U.S. should be above submitting to international laws and bodies”. Id. Ironically, U.S. courts have taken a global view that facilitates a uniform body of lex sportiva; whereas, the ECJ’s Meca-Medina decision threatens its worldwide uniformity and application. Although U.S. courts have recognized and enforced international arbitration awards that confl ict with national law (albeit reluctantly), it raises the possibility that, in the future, U.S. judges may apply the New York Convention’s “public policy” defense more broadly in an effort to protect U.S. athletes’ rights under domestic law if other courts use national or transnational law to engage in de facto review of the merits of a CAS award. 101. A Greek law professor suggests that “public international law could lay down a regulatory framework for international sporting bodies.” Dimitrios P. PANAGIOTOPOULOS, The Application of THE LEX SPORTIVA in the Context of National Sports Law, 9 J. Comp. L. is a very limited scope of judicial review of CAS arbitration awards appropriate based on public policy considerations, including the need for an international legal regime that effectively protects all parties’ respective rights and interests? Should an international treaty formally designate the CAS as the world court for sport with a permanent bench of judges, and would it likely function better than a private international arbitral tribunal? Although these are sport-specifi c issues, they may have broader implications for the resolution of confl icts between national laws and the developing body of decisions of international tribunals established by private agreement as well as the identifi cation and establishment of a legal system for developing a global body of uniform law in particular areas that will be universally respected. 123, 131 (2008). He proposes that the institutional autonomy of international sports federations and consequently the Lex Sportiva, and the corresponding jurisdictional order, should be placed under international scrutiny as to its legitimacy by what one might call a sports united nations. States must adopt an international sports charter to establish a truly international Lex Sportiva, a framework supporting the institutional autonomy and operation of international sporting bodies. Id. at 139-40 (footnotes omitted). Articles et commentaires / Articles and commentaries - 13
La médiation : processus et application dans le domaine sportif Me Jean Gay I. Préambule ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 II. Défi nition .................................................................................................................................................................15 III. Médiation versus Arbitrage ................................................................................................................................15 IV. Les Caractéristiques essentielles de la Médiation ......................................................................................16 A. La négociation raisonnée ou méthode de Harvard .......................................................................................16 1. Traiter séparément les questions relatives aux personnes de celles relatives à leur litige.....................16 2. Se concentrer sur les intérêts des parties plutôt que sur leurs positions. ...............................................17 3. Cerner diverses options procurant un bénéfi ce mutuel. ...........................................................................18 4. Utiliser des critères objectifs .........................................................................................................................18 5. “Win-Win ” et “Win-Lose ” solution..............................................................................................................18 B. Les “ outils ” spécifi ques utilisés en médiation .................................................................................................19 1. L’écoute empathique ......................................................................................................................................19 2. Le questionnement ouvert ............................................................................................................................19 3. La reformulation .............................................................................................................................................19 4. Les accords de Camp David : une illustration de négociation raisonnée aboutie ................................20 V. La Médiation : Un Processus Effi cace ............................................................................................................20 A. Avantages pratiques ...........................................................................................................................................20 1. Le temps ...........................................................................................................................................................20 2. Le coût ..............................................................................................................................................................20 3. Autre coût: le coût psychologique ................................................................................................................20 4. Décision souvent décevante sinon même choquante ...............................................................................21 B. Avantages substantiels : Potentiel de solutions créatives, tendant à un “ win-win ” ..............................21 1. L’augmentation des ressources à disposition .............................................................................................21 2. Compensation d’une concession ..................................................................................................................22 3. Satisfaction d’un seul élément de la demande mais de manière extraordinaire ...................................22 4. Réduction des “nuisances ” ..............................................................................................................................22 5. Solution autre que les demandes initiales des parties ................................................................................22 C. Limites de la médiation .....................................................................................................................................22 VI. Tendances actuelles dans la Médiation .........................................................................................................23 A. La médiation facilitative ...................................................................................................................................23 B. La médiation évaluative .....................................................................................................................................23 VII. Médiation et le TAS ..............................................................................................................................................24 A. La médiation au TAS : une médiation évaluative ........................................................................................24 B. Médiation aboutie et non aboutie ....................................................................................................................24 C. L’avenir de la médiation au TAS ......................................................................................................................25 VIII. Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................................................26 I. Préambule La gestion du litige a grandement évolué au fi l du temps. La préhistoire ne connaissait comme seul moyen que la force. La raison du plus fort était l’unique solution de mettre fi n à une querelle. L’avènement de la civilisation amène une première évolution : à la violence se substitue l’autorité publique. La raison du plus fort n’est plus le fait de l’individu mais celui de la collectivité. Nous entrons progressivement dans l’ère de la règle de droit. Articles et commentaires / Articles and commentaries - 14
Page 1 and 2: Bulletin TAS CAS Bulletin 1 / 2012
Page 3 and 4: Arbitration CAS 2011/O/2422 .......
Page 5 and 6: “ Sports law ”: implications fo
Page 7 and 8: and procedures of the CAS 10 . The
Page 9 and 10: 2. Considering the plenary power of
Page 11 and 12: over the emerging game of indoor so
Page 13 and 14: appeals arbitration proceedings, ab
Page 15: troubling because . . . United Stat
Page 19 and 20: Ainsi, la solution au confl it éma
Page 21 and 22: voir sa demande profonde comprise :
Page 23 and 24: pour les parties elles-mêmes. Cell
Page 25 and 26: divergent sur l’exécution (mer/m
Page 27 and 28: Ces deux grands courants font l’o
Page 29 and 30: peine de retomber rapidement dans u
Page 31 and 32: mémoires déposés par les parties
Page 33 and 34: d’un règlement d’obtenir un av
Page 35 and 36: • une brève description des moye
Page 37 and 38: R64.2 (…) R65 Appels contre des d
Page 39 and 40: written comments and shall give bri
Page 41 and 42: his own discretion, the questions s
Page 43 and 44: strong links between the two 1 . In
Page 45 and 46: According to Article 17.4 “If any
Page 47 and 48: Finally, in the absence of other de
Page 49 and 50: epresentative (Respondent) argued t
Page 51 and 52: Figure 2: Orders on language in CAS
Page 53 and 54: litiges pouvant être soumis à la
Page 55 and 56: au lien du litige en cause avec le
Page 57 and 58: Contrairement aux autres institutio
Page 59 and 60: coûts doivent être raisonnables 4
Page 61 and 62: Investigating magistrate no. 31 of
Page 63 and 64: 2. Proper Defendants Article 282 of
Page 65 and 66: interference by state courts) with
Page 67 and 68:
against doping in sports. To achiev
Page 69 and 70:
Arbitration CAS 2010/A/2091 Dennis
Page 71 and 72:
had stated that his claim had been
Page 73 and 74:
effectiveness and validity of that
Page 75 and 76:
another players’ agent (…) oper
Page 77 and 78:
Beitar FC. In the Appellant’s vie
Page 79 and 80:
The referred letter, in its pertine
Page 81 and 82:
8. Condemn the Respondent to the pa
Page 83 and 84:
It is clear for the Panel that the
Page 85 and 86:
damage. There is wilful damage when
Page 87 and 88:
in the determination of the compens
Page 89 and 90:
Arbitration TAS 2010/A/2220 Corina
Page 91 and 92:
En date du 27 août 2010, l’Appel
Page 93 and 94:
2010, le droit de Greffe acquitté
Page 95 and 96:
Il relève en effet que leur versio
Page 97 and 98:
Arbitration C AS 2010/A/2275 Croati
Page 99 and 100:
of golf clubs in Croatia had withdr
Page 101 and 102:
(depending upon the translation) th
Page 103 and 104:
waiting until the eve of the AGM 20
Page 105 and 106:
provisional suspension and also to
Page 107 and 108:
that it did not have any particular
Page 109 and 110:
c) The resolution fi le dated Febru
Page 111 and 112:
2011, Art. 156 no. 11 ff) if the ev
Page 113 and 114:
Article 293 UCI ADR determines the
Page 115 and 116:
The Decision seems to be based on t
Page 117 and 118:
clenbuterol can only have entered t
Page 119 and 120:
- how the Prohibited Substance ente
Page 121 and 122:
entry into his system of the Prohib
Page 123 and 124:
which will be addressed in detail b
Page 125 and 126:
in those countries is rampant. Sinc
Page 127 and 128:
as high as 1 out of 100 slaughtered
Page 129 and 130:
athletes having tested positive to
Page 131 and 132:
illustrate that his blood values ar
Page 133 and 134:
specifi c gravity of 1.020. Without
Page 135 and 136:
values of subjects that did not und
Page 137 and 138:
urine tests performed the evenings
Page 139 and 140:
WADA that the calculations regardin
Page 141 and 142:
One of the reasons for that could b
Page 143 and 144:
ingested by him was contaminated wi
Page 145 and 146:
The Athlete refers the Panel to the
Page 147 and 148:
athlete but withdrawn once the time
Page 149 and 150:
The USOC argues that the IOC Regula
Page 151 and 152:
period of ineligibility (non-partic
Page 153 and 154:
Arbitrage TAS 2011/A/2433 Amadou Di
Page 155 and 156:
précisions sur les offres que le Q
Page 157 and 158:
estrictions, non, entre les comité
Page 159 and 160:
En date du 3 février 2011, la Comm
Page 161 and 162:
II 271; H.M. RIEMER, Berner Komment
Page 163 and 164:
onne foi et de respect de la procé
Page 165 and 166:
son exploitation mais, comme observ
Page 167 and 168:
des droits de la personnalité. L
Page 169 and 170:
ne peut que prendre note de remarqu
Page 171 and 172:
En l’espèce, celui qui cherchait
Page 173 and 174:
évidence le fait que leur “condu
Page 175 and 176:
toute activité liée au football
Page 177 and 178:
Extracts from the legal fi ndings A
Page 179 and 180:
Arbitration CAS 2011/O/2574 Union o
Page 181 and 182:
SFL Appeals Tribunal of 29 July 201
Page 183 and 184:
its position on OLA’s request for
Page 185 and 186:
- production par la fondation du co
Page 187 and 188:
(iii) To confi rm that OLA is not e
Page 189 and 190:
CCP. The substantive validity of th
Page 191 and 192:
2.2 Article R46 (1) of the CAS Code
Page 193 and 194:
constitutive of an abuse of a domin
Page 195 and 196:
Claimant to indicate its prayers fo
Page 197 and 198:
It results from the above that UEFA
Page 199 and 200:
The UEL 2011/2012 is an internation
Page 201 and 202:
The Panel considers that the sancti
Page 203 and 204:
- discriminate OLA pursuant to Arti
Page 205 and 206:
Appellant requested the matter be d
Page 207 and 208:
The Panel is satisfi ed that the Bu
Page 209 and 210:
E. Conclusion In summary, the Panel
Page 211 and 212:
Appellant described as caffeine pil
Page 213 and 214:
apply the various regulations of FI
Page 215 and 216:
in doping matters is to be upheld w
Page 217 and 218:
* * 4A_404/2010 Judgment of 19 Apri
Page 219 and 220:
BGG; Jean-Maurice Frésard, in Comm
Page 221 and 222:
Art. 2.1 of the Statutes of Respond
Page 223 and 224:
validity, namely with regard to its
Page 225 and 226:
that he is a Turkish citizen, who p
Page 227 and 228:
in the provisions of any other serv
Page 229 and 230:
Respondent had their domicile, seat
Page 231 and 232:
evidential submission took place ti
Page 233 and 234:
un contrôle antidopage ou à l’a
Page 235 and 236:
essortissant à la conception suiss
Page 237 and 238:
4A_428/2011 Arrêt du 13 février 2
Page 239 and 240:
interdiction d’exécuter les sanc
Page 241 and 242:
Il leur a cependant échappé que c
Page 243 and 244:
éférence (arrêt 4A_246/2011 du 7
Page 245 and 246:
l’AMA entendait tirer de la Conve
Page 247 and 248:
4A_652/2011 Arrêt du 7 mars 2012 I
Page 249:
Publications récentes relatives au
show all

(CAS) Bulletin - Tribunal Arbitral du Sport / TAS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?