INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC ACADEMY 7th JOINT - IOA

Conclusions
The CAS Ad Hoc Division does not primarily have to deal with
issues of independence like the CAS does. The issuing of a final
decision within 24 hours presupposes an austere procedure in terms of
both the guarantees provided and flexibility.
Furthermore the CAS Ad Hoc Division is a particularly useful tool
in the hands of the Olympic Movement, ensuring the problem-free
conduct of the Olympic Games. The original conception has been
implemented successfully to date, at least in terms of both acceptance
by the sports world and its effectiveness in practice. What remains is
for comments to be made and formulated on an ongoing basis for its
imperfections to be addressed. To this end, it remains to be seen
whether the institution can adapt to the changing requirements of the
Olympic Games without placing the basic objectives of a fair trial at
risk.
NOTES
1 See Article 1 of the Olympic Charter.
2 See Article 9 of the Olympic Charter: ‘The Olympic Games are competitions
between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries. They
bring together the athletes designated for such purpose by the respective NOCs
[…]’ (emphasis added by the author).
3 See Article 74 of the Olympic Charter.
4 B.G.Schwaar (1993), “Tribunal Arbitral du Sport”, in: D. Panagiotopoulos
(ed.), 1 st International Congress on Sports Law (Athens, 11-13.12.1992),
Telethrion Editions, Athens, p.434.
5 The Court of Arbitration for Sport has officially been in operation since
30.6.1984 based at Lausanne, Switzerland (hereinafter: CAS). As an
introduction see K. Mbaye (1992), “Court of Arbitration on Sport (CAS)”, in:
Olympic Review, September, No. 299, pp. 444-445.
6 ‘[…] arbitration would appear to have been invented for sport […]’, see P.
Jacq (1993), “L’intervention du juge dans le reglement des conflits sportifs dans
- 495 -