INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC ACADEMY 7th JOINT - IOA

les etats members de la Communaute Europeene”, in: D. Panagiotopoulos (ed.),
1 st International Congress on Sports Law, op.cit., p.417.
7 Thanks to the Paris Agreement 26.6.1994 the CAS to a large extent
disassociated itself from the IOC and is no longer directly dependent on it. It is
administered by the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS),
established specifically for this purpose. See inter alia M. Reeb (1998), “The
Court of Arbitration for Sport: an institution for settling sports-related disputes
by arbitration”, D. Panagiotopoulos (ed.) Proceedings 5 th I.A.S.L. Congress
(Nafplio, Greece, 10-12.7.1997), p.159.
8 See D. Panagiotopoulos, (1997), Sports Jurisdiction, Ant. N. Sakkloulas
Publishers, Athens – Komotini, p. 156.
9 See L. Silance (1978), ‘Legal Problems at the Olympic Games’, in:
International Olympic Academy, 17 th Meeting (8-24.7.1977), IOA Publications,
p. 148-149.
10 Establishing a system of temporary, decentralised arbitration, see J.-P. Rochat
(1997), “The CAS at the Olympic Games”, in: Olympic Review, October-
November, No. 17, p.77. See too Article S6 para. 1, 8 and 10 of the CAS
Charter and Article 2 Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games (hereinafter:
CAS Ad Hoc Rules) dated 14.10.2003.
11 See paragraph 5.1 of the rule of application in Article 49 of the Olympic
Charter. See too J.A.R. Nafziger (2003), “Arbitration of rights and obligations in
the international sports arena”, in: N. Korchia-C. Petitti ed., Sports and
Fundamental Guarantees, 7th IASL Congress (Paris, 30.11-1.12 2000), p.593.
See too CAS Ad Hoc Decision (O.G. Nagano) 98/002, in: M. Reeb ed. (1998),
Recueil de sentences du TAS - Digest of CAS Awards, Editions Staempfli SA,
Berne, p.420, §3.
12 See C. Vedder (1995), “The development of arbitration in sports law”, in:
Supplement to the Official Proceedings of the IAF Symposium on Sport & Law
(Monte Carlo, 31.1-2.2.1991), pp.33, 37.
13 The Code of Sports-related Arbitration is a single text which includes the
Charters of the ICAS and CAS (whose articles are preceded by the letter S) and
the CAS procedural rules (preceded by the letter R). To avoid terminological
confusion this text will be referred to hereinafter as the CAS Code since the
prefixes provide the necessary distinction in any event.
14 See CAS Code, Article S6 para. 8.
15 Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games, see footnote 8 above. The CAS Ad
hoc Division has also been convened for the Good Will Games (Kuala Lumpur
1998 and Manchester 2002). It has managed the following number of cases at
the summer and winter Olympic Games to date: 1996-6, 1998-5, 2000-15, 2002-
8. Source: http://www.tas-cas.org/en/stat/frmstat.htm, Table 2.
16 Two of the main advantages of the CAS in general. See J.-P. Rochat (1995),
“The Court of Arbitration for Sport”, in: Supplement to the Official Proceedings
- 496 -