(CAS) Bulletin - Tribunal Arbitral du Sport / TAS

epresentative (Respondent) argued that the case
should not be admissible because the parties’ names
were translated into English (instead of Dutch). The
Panel rejected this argument because the language
that had been chosen for the proceedings before
the CAS was English. It found that it is perfectly
admissible to translate the names of the parties into
the language of the proceedings. Moreover, both
Appellants used the English denomination in their
respective Statement of Appeal and Appeal Brief.
What is more, the Respondent was fully aware of the
entities that were translated into English, and their
identity was at no time doubtful.
The Panel concluded that using the exact English
translation of the Appellants was not capable of
causing any confusion and that his right of defense
was not endangered therethrough. In any event, in
order to facilitate the cooperation with the CAS, the
Panel requested the Appellants to use the original,
non-translated (i.e. Dutch) names. On another front,
the same Respondent argued that the fact that the
Appellants’ names were translated into English
(instead of Dutch) resulted in the appeal being fi led
late. However, the Panel found that the denomination
in English or in Dutch did not infl uence the existence
or identity of the parties, and therefore the appeals
were fi led timely.
3. Modifi cation of the appointment of an arbitrator
The decision of the President of the – ordinary or
appeals – Division as to the language of the procedure
might affect the appointment of an arbitrator by one
of the parties. This was the case in TAS 2005/A/983
& 984 (order on language of 23 December 2005); the
dispute concerned a football club from a Spanishspeaking
country (the Appellant) and a French football
club (the Respondent). The decision appealed against
was drafted in Spanish and, while the Appellant fi led
his statement of appeal in French, it appointed an
arbitrator who could not conduct an arbitration in
French; the President of the Appeals Division held
that in the absence of agreement between the parties
it was not possible to choose Spanish as the language
of the arbitration and opted for French. As a result,
the President ordered that the initially appointed
arbitrator (who could not conduct the arbitration
in French) should be replaced by another Frenchspeaking
arbitrator and granted the Appellant with
an additional deadline in order to appoint a new
arbitrator of his choice and to submit the translations
of all relevant documents into French 44 .
44. See also CAS 2012/A/2722 & CAS 2012/A/2723, Orders on
language of 29 February 2012, where the arbitrator that had initially
been appointed did not speak English, the language eventually chosen
for the procedure, and was subsequently replaced.
III. Final remarks
Parties bringing their dispute before CAS may choose
among the two “ offi cial ” CAS languages i.e. English
and French, which are also the offi cial languages of
the IOC which created the CAS back in 1984. If,
however, the parties cannot reach an agreement as
to the language of the procedure, the case has to be
brought to the President of the panel or the President
of the Division who will decide which of the two
languages shall be used, in most cases by means of an
“ order on language ”. This has to be made at the outset
of the proceedings, but issues related to language can
also arise at a later stage.
Specifi cally for the appeal proceedings, one should
differentiate between the CAS working languages
and the offi cial languages of a Federation/association
that issued the fi rst-instance decision. Indeed, the
language of the fi rst-instance proceedings (and the
decision appealed against) may be a criterion in order
to decide which language will be used before CAS;
this, however, is not the case if the fi rst-instance
proceedings took place in a third language. Another
criterion determining the language of the proceedings
is the language in which it was drafted the contract
or agreement, in particular when the latter forms the
subject matter of the dispute. Generally, however, the
citizenship and the mother tongue of the Appellant
(or one of the parties) 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/ one of the parties. The
fact that the appellant or one of the parties or their
counsel has not a good command in English is not a
decisive element either.
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 (when the appointed Arbitrators
have a good command in both languages chosen). In
any event, documents sent in another language than
the language of the procedure are not automatically
declared inadmissible, but parties are granted a
deadline in order to complete or translate their request
(in order to avoid the excessive formalism according
with the jurisprudence of the Swiss Federal Tribunal).
CAS Panels show fl exibility in order to satisfy both
parties and not encumber the procedure, but always
within the limits of due process.
It follows that the choice of a language of procedure
should not be underestimated; although, at fi rst
Articles et commentaires / Articles and commentaries
-
46