(CAS) Bulletin - Tribunal Arbitral du Sport / TAS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

On 25 October 2011, CAS, upon request by OLA, informed the Parties about the past activities of Dr Nater and Professor Fumagalli as CAS arbitrators. The Parties were also informed that Dr Nater was appointed as President of the Panel by mutual agreement of the two co-arbitrators. On the same day, OLA addressed a letter to the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) challenging Professor Fumagalli as arbitrator. On 28 October 2011, the CAS Court offi ce informed the Parties that Professor Fumagalli was actually appointed only once by UEFA in the last three years and invited OLA to declare if it wished to maintain the challenge in view of such information. On 1 November 2011, OLA informed CAS that it maintained its challenge against Professor Fumagalli. Also on 1 November 2011, UEFA fi led its Statement of Claim and First Reply to the Exception of Lack of Jurisdiction. On 2 November 2011, Professor Fumagalli informed CAS that he had decided to resign as arbitrator in order to favour a smooth resolution of the dispute, even though he strongly refuted OLA’s grounds for his challenge. On 4 November 2011, UEFA appointed Mr Patrick Lafranchi, Attorney-at-law in Bern, Switzerland, as arbitrator in replacement of Professor Fumagalli. On 7 November 2011, the Parties were informed that Mr Lafranchi accepted his appointment and signed the “Acceptance and Statement of Independence form” and that the Panel was amended accordingly. On 8 November 2011, the Panel issued four orders admitting Atlético, Celtic, Udinese and Stade Rennais as Third Parties (parties intéressées) to the present proceedings and invited the Parties to fi le their observations with respect to the rights which should be granted to the Third Parties. On 10 November 2011, following a request made by OLA, the Parties were informed that Mr Lafranchi had been nominated three times since 2002 by either FIFA, UEFA, SFA and/or SFL and that he sat in seven Panels involving decisions by FIFA organs. In these cases, FIFA, UEFA, SFA and/or SFL were not involved as parties. On the same day, following a request by OLA, Respondent was granted a time extension to submit its response. On 11 November 2011, UEFA informed CAS that the Third Parties should be given full access to the CAS fi le, the right to fi le written submissions and the right to take part in the hearing. On the same day, OLA reiterated that the four clubs should not be accepted as third parties. It further stated that the interventions of four new parties would affect its rights in the proceedings and that its Counsel would not be able to handle the increase of work incurred by the interventions. It requested the establishment of a new procedural calendar. Also on 11 November 2011, the Third Parties submitted their position with regard to the rights which they should be granted in the proceedings, each of them concluding that they should be given access to the fi le, be allowed to fi le written submissions and be allowed to attend the hearing. On 14 November 2011, the Panel issued the following decision with regard to the Third Parties’ rights in the proceedings: 1) The four interested parties will each receive a copy of the fi le, which has been mailed to them by DHL today. 2) The four interested parties are excluded from submitting written submissions unless formally requested by one of the main party [sic] by fax on or before 16 November 2011 at 4 pm in which case, the third parties requesting such submission will be invited to transmit by fax to the CAS and directly to the other parties at the latest on 21 November 2011 at 9 am a written summary of its pleadings limited to a maximum of 5 pages. 3) The four interested parties will in any event be allowed to attend the hearing and to plead during 15 minutes (max). 4) The four interested parties will not be allowed to make any requests on their own but only to support, if they wish, the main parties’ requests. 5) The four interested parties who will attend the hearing can be represented by a maximum of one legal counsel and one representative of the club (who will have to sit at the back of the hearing room). On 14 November 2011, OLA fi led its Response and requested the following evidentiary measures: a) Regarding the alleged fi nancial links between football bodies and ICAS, respectively CAS: - production par la fondation du conseil international de l’arbitrage en matière de sport de ses comptes annuels: bilan, compte d’exploitation (ou PP) de 2000 à 2010; Jurisprudence majeure / Leading cases - 181
- production par la fondation du conseil international de l’arbitrage des rapports annuels sur les comptes (du réviseur/du CIAS); - audition en qualité de témoin de la (des) collaborateur(s) de X. SA qui ont effectué la révision des comptes de la fondation de 2000 à 2010; - audition en qualité de témoin de M. Jean-Jacques Leu, c/o CIAS; - audition en qualité de témoin de M. Joseph Blatter, FIFA, Zürich; - expertise comptable pour laquelle il est proposé Z., Z. & Associés SA, Neuchâtel. b) Regarding the alleged possibility for CAS Secretary General to have an infl uence on the Panel/on the issuance of a dispute OLA requested to hear, as witnesses - Matthieu Reeb, secrétaire général du TAS; - Joseph Blatter, c/o FIFA, Zürich; - Marco Villiger, c/o FIFA, Zürich; - Gianni Infantino, c/o UEFA, Nyon. c) Regarding the closed list of CAS arbitrators OLA requested the hearing of Matthieu Reeb and the fi ling of the following documents: - Production par le conseil de la fondation de tous les documents comportant des propositions d’arbitres provenant des fédérations sportives, en particulier de FIFA et UEFA (pour la liste générale et pour la liste football); - Production par le même conseil de tous les documents en relation avec la désignation des arbitres intégrés dans les listes depuis l’adhésion du « monde du football » au TAS (liste générale et liste football); - Production par le secrétaire général du TAS d’une liste de tous les arbitres ayant siégé depuis 2003 jusqu’à ce jour dans des affaires en relations avec la FIFA, l’UEFA et leurs associations affi liées (lorsque la partie est un joueur, un club, une association) avec indication de la partie qui l’a désigné et du nombre de causes où l’arbitre a siégé, ces informations devant comprendre notamment la production des données ci-dessus; si le TAS juge cette offre de preuve trop étendue, même réquisition en lien avec tous les arbitres suisses, et les arbitres Bernasconi, Haas, Coccia, et Pinto, D’autres offres de preuves seraient alors réservées en fonction du résultat. On 16 November 2011, Claimant fi led its Final Reply to Exception of Lack of Jurisdiction. Between 16 and 18 November 2011, all the Parties signed the Order of Procedure dated 15 November 2011. However, OLA emphasized that its Counsel had signed the order but not agreed to the proceedings as conducted. On 21 November 2011, the fi duciary company X. SA informed OLA that in view of its obligation related to professional secrecy it would not be represented at the hearing. Also on 21 November 2011, OLA transmitted to CAS the party-appointed expert report by Professor Walter Stoffel addressing questions related to competition law. Also on 21 November 2011, OLA informed ICAS that it was challenging the independence of the coarbitrators Jean Gay and Patrick Lafranchi. On 22 November 2011, former Federal Tribunal Judge Jean-Jacques Leu informed OLA that he would not testify. Not being a member of the Board of the ICAS, Mr Leu felt he did not have the capacity to represent the ICAS Foundation and considered the best person to answer OLA’s queries on the functioning of CAS was Mr Reeb. On 23 November 2011, Mr Reeb, whose appearance as a witness was requested by OLA, informed the Parties that he would be available to appear as witness at the hearing. Attached to his letter, Mr Reeb fi led a witness statement addressing issues of independence and impartiality of CAS which can be summarized as follows: - It is well known that, after the recognition of CAS by FIFA, the number of cases submitted to CAS raised considerably. - ICAS is fi nanced by the whole Olympic Movement, i.e. IOC, International Federations, including FIFA, and the National Olympic Committees. This fi nancing system was scrutinized in detail and validated by the Swiss Federal Tribunal in the Lazutina case. It is worth noting that UEFA is not part of the entities which fi nance ICAS. - At the time of the Lazutina case, the IOC was fi nancing 31,5% of the ICAS budget whereas FIFA is “only” fi nancing 10,5% of the present ICAS budget. Therefore, the reasoning followed by the Swiss Federal Tribunal in the Lazutina case should be a fortiori applicable to the present case. - The vast majority of football cases does not directly involve FIFA but clubs, players, coaches or agents. In such proceedings, the parties generally fi le an appeal regarding decisions rendered by FIFA, Jurisprudence majeure / Leading cases - 182
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 and 16:
troubling because . . . United Stat
Page 17 and 18:
La médiation : processus et applic
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: its position on OLA’s request for
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?