(CAS) Bulletin - Tribunal Arbitral du Sport / TAS

D. Translation of documents
According to Article R29 CAS Code, the Panel has
the possibility (but is not obliged) to request the
production of certifi ed translations of all documents
that are not in the language of the procedure.
Documents submitted in any other language shall
be accompanied by a translation; otherwise the panel
could decline to consider them 37 . Such translation
should in principle be certifi ed translation; however,
CAS Panels often allow non-certifi ed / free
translation provided by one of the parties if there is
no objection raised by the other party.
In CAS 2007/A/1207, the Panel held that it has the
prerogative to decide that it is not necessary to order
the Appellant to produce certifi ed translations of
documents that were produced in another language.
The two conditions are that the panel should be
in a position to understand the contents of these
documents and that the non-translation of these
documents does not bring he Respondent at a
disadvantage in the proceedings, nor deprive it of its
right to be heard; this can happen if the Respondent’s
attorneys are of this other language’s mother tongue
and therefore understand all documents produced 38 .
Indeed, in some instances the fact that the parties’
counsel is fl uent in another language is taken into
consideration by the CAS Panels before deciding on
whether to request a translation, especially when such
translation is not requested by the other party. In
CAS 2006/A/1057 the Panel chose not to order any
further translation than the one already provided by
the Appellant, by taking into consideration that the
athlete’s counsel is also comfortable with the French
language and that the largest part of the relevant
documentation consists of scientifi c statistics.
In a similar context, in TAS 2006/A/1095 the Panel
considered that it would be disproportionate to ask a
party to translate a series of documents from German
to French, especially since the parties had already
used the German language before and the party who
asked for the translation not only has its seat in the
German-speaking part of Switzerland, but also has
German as offi cial language, in accordance with its
statutes. The Panel thus decided that the Panel should
take into consideration the exhibits submitted by the
other party in German 39 .
37. See CAS 2008/A/1641 & 1642.
38. See CAS 2007/A/1207; see also CAS 2007/A/1213.
39. See also TAS 2009/A/1764, order of 11 February 2009.
E. Impact of the language on the conduct of
the hearing
1. Inadmissibility of documents submitted in a
foreign language and excessive formalism
Normally, documents sent in another language than
the one chosen as the language of the procedure are
not automatically declared inadmissible. CAS Counsel
reminds the parties on the language chosen, and
gives the parties a deadline in order to comply with
Article R29 CAS Code. In the CAS 2003/O/460 40 ,
the panel held that when a party lodges a pleading
(e.g. a request for arbitration or a statement of appeal),
which would be incomplete because of a failure to
comply fully with the requirements of Rules R29 and
R38 of the Code (e.g. by failing to write the request
in one of the offi cial languages) then an additional
period is granted to such party to pay the minimum
fee or to complete or translate its request.
Furthermore, the panel concluded that this practice
is consistent with the jurisprudence of the Swiss
Federal Tribunal concerning the translation of
proceedings into an offi cial language 41 . Both the
doctrine and jurisprudence demonstrate that the
denial of such additional deadline constitutes an
excessive formalism, forbidden by the Swiss Federal
Constitution 42 . This, however, does not apply in cases
where the d.ocument in question should anyway be
declared inadmissible because it was e.g. fi led late.
In TAS 2010/A/2100, the Respondent (an Egyptian
football club) sent a document containing his written
arguments in English. The panel found that the
specifi c document was not admissible and had to be
removed from the fi le of the case since it was sent
late (Article R56 CAS Code) but also because it was
written in a language other than the French language
(that had been chosen for the procedure).
2. Translation of the parties’ names and
inadmissibility of the appeal
An interesting CAS Award was recently issued with
regard to the language of the parties’ names and the
admissibility of the appeal 43 : an anti-doping authority
appealed to the CAS against the second-instance
decision lifting the initially imposed sanction
for use of a prohibited substance. The Athlete’s
40. Preliminary Award CAS 2003/O/460; the case was eventually
terminated.
41. See inter alia Decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal (DFT)
1B_17/2012, judgment of 14 February 2012, at 3; DFT 1B_4/2012,
Judgement of 11 January 2012, at 3; see also the older ATF 102 Ia 35;
ATF 106 Ia 299.
42. See also POUDRET J., Commentaire de la loi fédérale d’organisation
judiciaire, Vol. I, Bern, 1990, nr 1.2.4 ad Article 30, p. 179, with further
references.
43. See CAS 2011/A/2311 & 2312.
Articles et commentaires / Articles and commentaries
-
45