(CAS) Bulletin - Tribunal Arbitral du Sport / TAS

Finally, in the absence of other decisive elements, the
language of the procedure remains the one in which
the Appellant drafted his statement of appeal /appeal
brief /claim (the language in which the Appellant
initiated the procedure 32 . In TAS 2006/A/1163 the
Appellant sent his statement of appeal/ appeal brief in
French, and the Respondent (a federation) asked that
English be chosen as the language of the procedure.
However, the President of the Appeals Division
noted that the federation in question had English and
French as offi cial languages and the disputed event
(i.e. a world championship) had taken place in France;
therefore, in the absence of other decisive elements in
favour of the one or the other offi cial language, the
President decided to apply the language in which the
Appellant initiated the procedure.
3. Citizenship, mother tongue of the parties and
language of the parties’ counsel
In CAS 2008/A/1630, the Appellant (a French
citizen) sent the statement of appeal in French. In a
letter sent to the CAS some days after his statement
of appeal, the Appellant argued that French should
be chosen as the language of the procedure, since
French is one of the offi cial languages of the CAS, and
that none of the two CAS offi cial languages should
a priori be favoured before CAS ; the particular case
concerned a French citizen (the Appellant), who lived
in France and had very little knowledge of English:
the Appellant should therefore be able to conduct his
defence in French, in his mother tongue, in order to
better defend his rights, whereas the choice of English
could be detrimental to the Appellant; another
argument in favour of French being chosen as the
language of the procedure was that the Arbitrator
who had been appointed was a French citizen.
However, the Respondent asked that English be
chosen as the language of the proceedings, since
this is the offi cial language of the Federation, and
the applicable rules were drafted in English. An
additional argument in favour of English was that
the proceedings before the fi rst-instance body were
conducted in English, counsel representing the
Federation did not speak French and the exhibits
submitted by the Appellant were in their majority
in English; the Appellant further supported that
translation of all documents drafted in English
would constitute an excessive burden and expense on
the Federation; fi nally, if the Appellant needed the
assistance of an interpreter during the hearing, the
Federation would be ready to bear the relevant costs.
32. See TAS 2006/A/1163, order on language issued on 2 November
2006.
In his Order on language issued on 15 August 2008,
the Deputy President of the Appeals Arbitration
Division decided that English should be used as the
language of the procedure; the citizenship and the
mother tongue of the Appellant do not constitute
key elements regarding the choice of the language of
arbitration, whereas proceedings before CAS may be
conducted in a language which may not necessarily
be the one of the country of the Appellant 33 . The
fact that the Appellant has not a good command
in English is not a decisive element either,
especially when the parties do not have a common
language 34 . Furthermore, as it was also found in TAS
2006/A/1163, the language of party’s counsel is not a
decisive element for the language of the procedure 35 .
As to the argument of fair trial, the Deputy President
held that this fails if the Appellant is assisted by a
lawyer having a good command in the language of
the procedure and/or an interpreter. The Deputy
President considered that the fact that the fi rstinstance
proceedings were conducted in English and
the challenged decision was in English played an
important role and concluded that English should be
selected as language of the procedure. Consequently,
according to the letter of Article R29 CAS Code,
there is no right of the athlete to use his own mother
tongue but there has to be an agreement between the
parties and the Panel has the prerogative to decide
according to the circumstances.
C. Acceptance of more than one languages
by the CAS panel
In some cases, although there is only one “ offi cial ”
language chosen by the President of the relevant
Division of CAS, the parties are allowed to bring
their documents in another language without having
to translate them, or can express themselves orally in
another language 36 . This happens mostly when the
appointed Arbitrators have a good command in both
languages chosen with a view to gaining time and
reduce additional costs that would have to be borne
by the parties. The consent of the parties also plays a
role in this respect: In CAS 2008/A/1564, “The hearing
was conducted in English, but the panel, with the consent of the
parties, allowed fl exibly for the use of German, where a person
could not express him/herself in English”.
33. CAS 2010/A/2306, order of 28 December 2010.
34. CAS 2009/A/1975, order on language of 18 November 2009.
35. TAS 2006/A/1163, order on language of 13 May 2009.
36. See also TAS 2006/A/1095 mentioned above.
Articles et commentaires / Articles and commentaries
-
44