File #2291: "2018_Book_YearbookOfInternationalSportsA.pdf"
Testo
1|463559_1_En_OFC|1
1|463559_1_En_BookFrontmatter_OnlinePDF|2
2|Editorial|6
2|Contents|9
2|Abbreviations|12
1|463559_1_En_1_PartFrontmatter_OnlinePDF|14
2|General Articles|14
1|463559_1_En_15_Chapter_OnlinePDF|15
2|15 Back to the Future: The First CAS Arbitrators on CAS’s First Award (TAS 86/1, HC X. c. LSHG) and Its Evolution Since Then|15
3|Abstract|15
3|1 Introduction|16
3|References|28
1|463559_1_En_13_Chapter_OnlinePDF|29
2|13 Applicability of Swiss Law in Doping Cases Before the CAS and the Swiss Federal Tribunal|29
3|Abstract|29
3|1 Introduction|30
3|2 Application of Swiss Law to the Procedure of a Doping Case (Lex Arbitri) and the Grounds for Setting Aside a CAS award Before the SFT|31
4|2.1 Independence and Impartiality of Arbitrators in Doping-Related Cases|33
4|2.2 Swiss Law When Determining Arbitrability of the Dispute and Jurisdiction of CAS in Doping-Related Cases|34
5|2.2.1 General|34
6|The Example of the Essendon Case—Swiss Law and Scope of Review of the CAS Panel in Appeal|36
5|2.2.2 Violation of the Principles Ne Ultra Petita—Ne Infra Petita|37
5|2.2.3 The Parties’ Right to Be Heard and the Right to Equal Treatment|38
5|2.2.4 Violation of Public Policy in Doping-Related Cases|38
5|2.2.5 Application of Swiss Procedural Law to Doping-Related Procedures Before CAS—Specific Questions|40
6|Swiss Law and Evidentiary Issues in Doping Cases|40
6|Ne Bis in Idem, Doping Procedures and CAS Case Law|41
6|Stay of the CAS Doping Proceedings Pending Criminal Proceedings in Another Country|42
6|Provisional Measures Before the CAS and Before the SFT|42
3|3 Application of Swiss Law to the Merits of a Doping Case|45
4|3.1 The CAS Code and the CAS Case Law|45
4|3.2 “Swiss Law Applies Subsidiarily”—Examples from Doping-Related Procedures|47
4|3.3 Specific Provisions of Swiss Law and Doping: Personality Rights and Article 28 Swiss Civil Code|48
4|3.4 Proportionality|48
3|4 Concluding Remarks|50
3|References|50
1|463559_1_En_17_Chapter_OnlinePDF|52
2|17 Standing to Appeal of Third Parties in Front of CAS|52
3|Abstract|52
3|1 Legal Concept of Locus Standi|53
4|1.1 Rationale of Standing to Appeal in Sports Arbitration|53
4|1.2 Legal Nature of Standing to Appeal|54
4|1.3 Distinction From the Right to Intervene Pursuant to R41.3 CAS Code|55
4|1.4 Legal Framework|55
5|1.4.1 Association Regulations|56
5|1.4.2 Swiss Law|56
3|2 CAS Jurisprudence Regarding Standing to Appeal|57
4|2.1 CAS 2002/O/373, COC & Beckie Scott v. IOC, Award of 18 December 2003|57
4|2.2 CAS/A/1583&1584, Benfica v. UEFA & FC Porto, Vitória Guimarães v. UEFA & FC Porto, Award of 15 July 2008|59
4|2.3 CAS 2015/A/4151, Panathinaikos FC v. UEFA & Olympiakos FC, Award of 26 November 2015|61
4|2.4 CAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania (FAA) v. UEFA & Football Association of Serbia (FAS), Award of 10 July 2015|62
3|3 Comparison to Other Fields of Law|64
4|3.1 Public Law|64
5|3.1.1 Anti-Doping Rule Violations|66
5|3.1.2 Eligibility for UEFA Competitions|67
4|3.2 Criminal Law|68
3|4 Conclusion|69
3|References|70
1|463559_1_En_14_Chapter_OnlinePDF|71
2|14 The Russian Doping Scandal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport: Lessons for the World Anti-Doping System|71
3|Abstract|71
3|1 Introduction|72
3|2 The ‘IAAF Award’|75
4|2.1 From the ARD Documentary to the Ineligibility of Russian Athletes for the Rio Olympics|75
4|2.2 The Key Legal Questions at the CAS|78
5|2.2.1 Does the Suspension of the RusAF Under Rule 22.1(a) Extend to the Eligibility of the Russian Athletes?|78
5|2.2.2 Is IAAF Competition Rule 22.1A Valid and Enforceable in the Circumstances of the Present Dispute?|82
5|2.2.3 Can the ROC Nominate Athletes to the Olympic Games Without the Assent of the IAAF?|83
5|2.2.4 Will the Russian Athletes Enjoying the Exception Enshrined in Rule 22.1A Compete as Neutral Athletes?|84
3|3 The Russian Doping Scandal at the CAS Ad Hoc Division|85
4|3.1 The Efimova Case: Saved by the Osaka Déjà-Vu|85
4|3.2 On Being Implicated Under the IOC Decision|87
5|3.2.1 CAS OG 16/19 Natalia Podolskaya & Alexander Dyachenko v. ICF|87
5|3.2.2 CAS OG 16/21 Elena Anyushina & Alexey Korovashkov v. ICF & RCF|89
5|3.2.3 CAS OG 16/12 Ivan Balandin v. FISA & IOC|91
4|3.3 On Being Sufficiently Tested Under the IOC Decision|92
4|3.4 On Bringing Weightlifting into Disrepute|94
4|3.5 Saving the Last Russian Woman Standing: The Klishina Miracle|96
5|3.5.1 The IAAF’s Second Thoughts Over the Implication of Klishina|96
5|3.5.2 The Surprising Decision of the CAS to Let Klishina Jump|97
4|3.6 Conclusion|100
3|4 The ‘IPC Award’|101
4|4.1 Did the RPC Fail to Comply with Its Membership Obligations?|101
4|4.2 Is the Sanction Imposed by the IPC Proportionate?|102
5|4.2.1 Whose Rights Are Disproportionately Affected?|103
5|4.2.2 The Extraordinary Nature of the RPC’s Regulatory Failure|103
5|4.2.3 The Proportionality of the Sanction|104
3|5 Conclusion|106
3|References|109
1|463559_1_En_22_Chapter_OnlinePDF|111
2|22 The Basketball Arbitral Tribunal’s 2017 Rules|111
3|Abstract|111
3|1 Introduction|112
3|2 Main Changes Introduced by the BAT Rules 2017—An Overview|113
4|2.1 BAT President’s and Secretariat’s Functions|114
4|2.2 Costs Issues|116
4|2.3 Awards—Contents and Notification|118
3|3 Conclusion|121
3|References|121
1|463559_1_En_2_PartFrontmatter_OnlinePDF|122
2|Commentaries of CAS Awards|122
1|463559_1_En_3_Chapter_OnlinePDF|123
2|3 CAS 2015/A/3920 Fédération Royale Marocaine de Football v. Confédération Africaine de Football, Award of 17 November 2015|123
3|Abstract|123
3|1 Facts and Procedure|124
3|2 CAS Jurisdiction|126
3|3 The Applicable AFCON Regulations|128
3|4 The “Healing” of Lower-Instance Procedural Defects on Appeal|128
3|5 The Absence of Force Majeure|130
3|6 The Violation of the CAF Regulations|131
4|6.1 The Decision to Withdraw from the Organisation of the Competition|131
4|6.2 Was There a Governmental Interference in Football Matters?|132
5|6.2.1 Government’s Duty to Intervene When Public Health Is in Danger|133
5|6.2.2 The Government’s Co-organisation Ability|133
3|7 The Application of the Proportionality Test and of the Principle nulla poena sine culpa|134
4|7.1 The Application of the Proportionality Test|134
4|7.2 The Application of the nulla poena sine culpa Principle|135
3|8 Conclusion|136
3|Reference|137
1|463559_1_En_10_Chapter_OnlinePDF|138
2|10 CAS 2015/A/4151, Panathinaikos FC v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) & Olympiakos FC, Award of 26 November 2015 (Operative Part of 24 August 2015)|138
3|Abstract|138
3|1 Facts and Procedure of the Case|139
4|1.1 Sport-Related Facts|139
4|1.2 Proceedings in Greece Against Mr. Marinakis|140
4|1.3 Proceedings in Front of the UEFA Bodies|140
5|1.3.1 The First Proceedings and the Appealed Decision—The “First Referral”|140
5|1.3.2 The Respondent’s Complaint Before the UEFA Bodies—The “Second Referral”|142
3|2 Legal Basis at the Centre of the Dispute|142
3|3 Proceedings Before the CAS|144
4|3.1 Parties’ Arguments|144
5|3.1.1 Arguments of the Appellant|144
5|3.1.2 Arguments of the Respondents|146
3|4 The Panel’s Legal Considerations|149
4|4.1 Admissibility—Obligation to be a Party in Front of the Previous Instances?|149
4|4.2 Merits of the Appeal|150
5|4.2.1 Did Panathinaikos Have Standing to Sue?|150
3|5 Observations|152
4|5.1 Preliminary Observation as to the Procedure Followed at UEFA Level|152
4|5.2 Administrative Measure Versus Disciplinary Measure|153
4|5.3 Standing to Sue|154
3|6 Conclusion|156
1|463559_1_En_8_Chapter_OnlinePDF|157
2|8 CAS 2015/A/3891, Kasimpasa Spor Kulübü v. Fernando Varela Ramos, Award of 10 December 2015|157
3|Abstract|157
3|1 Facts and Procedure|158
4|1.1 The Parties|158
4|1.2 Factual Background|158
3|2 Merits|160
4|2.1 Did the Player’s Absence Constitute a Just Cause for a Termination of the Contract?|160
3|3 Comment|162
4|3.1 When Does the Absence from Work/Trainings of a Player Constitute a Just Cause for a Termination?|162
4|3.2 The Importance of Witness Testimony at the Hearing|167
5|3.2.1 Are Counsel Allowed to Prepare Witnesses for a CAS Hearing?|168
4|3.3 The Calculation of the Compensation Due to the Termination Without Just Cause|169
3|4 Conclusion|170
3|References|170
1|463559_1_En_6_Chapter_OnlinePDF|171
2|6 CAS 2015/A/4105, PFC CSKA Moscow v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) & Football Club Midtjylland A/S, Award of 21 December 2015|171
3|Abstract|171
3|1 Facts and Procedure of the Case|172
4|1.1 Facts|172
4|1.2 Procedural Background|173
3|2 Submissions of the Parties|174
4|2.1 CSKA|174
4|2.2 FIFA|175
4|2.3 Midtjylland|176
3|3 Considerations of the Sole Arbitrator|176
4|3.1 Applicable Law|176
4|3.2 The Parties’ Agreement Concerning the Solidarity Contribution|177
4|3.3 Admissibility of the Claim in Front of FIFA|179
5|3.3.1 Regulatory Framework|179
5|3.3.2 The Event Giving Rise to the Dispute|180
4|3.4 The Obligation to Midtjylland to Reimburse CSKA|181
4|3.5 Summary|182
3|4 Observations|183
4|4.1 The Statute of Limitations|183
4|4.2 The Validity of the Agreement Concerning Solidarity Contribution|184
4|4.3 The Claim for Compensation of Losses|185
4|4.4 Procedural Remarks|186
3|5 Conclusion and Key Take-Aways for Legal Practice|187
3|References|188
1|463559_1_En_11_Chapter_OnlinePDF|189
2|11 CAS 2014/O/3781 & 3782 Sporting Clube de Portugal Futebol SAD v. Doyen Sports, Award of 21 December 2015|189
3|Abstract|189
3|1 Facts and Procedure|190
3|2 The Reasoning of the CAS|191
4|2.1 Are Doyen’s ERPAs Legal?|191
5|2.1.1 Is the Performance of the ERPAs Unlawful Under Swiss Law?|192
5|2.1.2 Is the Performance of the ERPAs Immoral Under Swiss Law?|194
5|2.1.3 Is the ERPA an Excessive Restriction on Sporting’s Economic Freedom?|196
5|2.1.4 Are the ERPAs Contrary to EU Law, the European Convention on Human Rights or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?|197
4|2.2 Has Sporting Unlawfully Breached the ERPA?|198
3|3 Conclusion: Is FIFA’s TPO Ban at Risk?|200
3|References|202
1|463559_1_En_19_Chapter_OnlinePDF|203
2|19 CAS 2015/A/4059, WADA v. Thomas Bellchambers et al., Award of 11 January 2016|203
3|Abstract|203
3|1 Introduction|204
3|2 Facts and Procedure of the Case|205
4|2.1 Background|205
4|2.2 AFL Tribunal Proceeding|206
4|2.3 CAS Proceeding|207
3|3 Commentary|207
4|3.1 Jurisdiction and Applicable Law|208
5|3.1.1 CAS Award|208
5|3.1.2 Comments|209
4|3.2 Power and Scope of the CAS Panel’s Review on Appeal|213
5|3.2.1 CAS Award|213
5|3.2.2 Comments|214
4|3.3 Proving an Anti-doping Rule Violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance|220
5|3.3.1 Admissibility of Evidence at the CAS|220
5|3.3.2 Evaluation of the Evidence|223
4|3.4 Sanction|236
5|3.4.1 CAS Award|236
5|3.4.2 Comment|239
3|4 Conclusion|243
3|References|244
1|463559_1_En_2_Chapter_OnlinePDF|245
2|2 CAS 2014/A/3852, Ascoli Calcio 1898 S.p.A. v. Papa Waigo N’diaye & Al Wahda Sports and Cultural Club, Award of 11 January 2016|245
3|Abstract|245
3|1 Facts and Procedure|246
4|1.1 The Parties|246
4|1.2 The Facts|246
4|1.3 The Arguments|247
5|1.3.1 Ascoli’s Arguments|247
6|Jurisdiction|247
6|On the Merits|248
5|1.3.2 The Player’s Arguments|249
6|Jurisdiction|249
6|On the Merits|249
5|1.3.3 Al Wadha’s Arguments|250
4|1.4 The CAS Decision|250
5|1.4.1 Jurisdiction|250
5|1.4.2 On the Merits|251
3|2 Commentary|255
4|2.1 Introduction|255
4|2.2 The Validity of Unilateral Extension Options in General|256
4|2.3 The Validity of the Unilateral Extension Option in This Case|260
4|2.4 The Validity of Unilateral Extension Options in the Future|262
3|3 Conclusion|266
3|References|267
1|463559_1_En_18_Chapter_OnlinePDF|268
2|18 CAS 2015/A/4162 Liga Deportiva Alajuelense v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), Award of 3 February 2016|268
3|Abstract|268
3|1 Facts and Procedure of the Case|269
3|2 The CAS’ Reasoning|271
4|2.1 The Relevant Provisions|271
4|2.2 Merits|272
5|2.2.1 Standing to Sue|272
5|2.2.2 The Nature of the Enforcement Proceedings According to Article 64 FDC|273
5|2.2.3 The Relevance of Foreign Insolvency Proceedings in the Context of Disciplinary Proceedings According to Article 64 FDC|273
5|2.2.4 Exceptions to the Above Principles|274
5|2.2.5 The Particularities of this Case|275
3|3 Analysis of the CAS’ Reasoning|277
4|3.1 Introduction|277
4|3.2 Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code|278
4|3.3 2011 Amendment of Article 64 FDC|280
4|3.4 Validity of Self-Enforcement Remedies|281
4|3.5 Application of Article 64 FDC and Article 107(b) FDC in the Present Case|283
3|References|288
1|463559_1_En_12_Chapter_OnlinePDF|289
2|12 CAS 2016/A/4439, Thomasz Hamerlak v. International Paralympic Committee, Award of 4 July 2016, CAS 2016/A/4676, Arijan Ademi v. Union of European Football Associations, Award of 24 March 2017 and CAS 2016/A/4534, Mauricio Fiol Villanueva v. Fédération Internationale de Natation, Award of 16 March 2017|289
3|Abstract|289
3|1 Article 10.2.1 of the 2015 WADA Code|290
3|2 Facts and Procedure of Tomasz Hamerlak v. International Paralympic Committee, Award of 4 July 2016|291
3|3 The CAS Holding and Analysis in Hamerlak v. International Paralympic Committee, Award of 4 July 2016|292
3|4 Facts and Procedure of Fiol Villanueva v. Fédération Internationale de Natation, Award of 16 March 2017|293
3|5 The CAS Holding and Analysis in Fiol Villanueva v. Fédération Internationale de Natation, Award of 16 March 2017|294
3|6 Facts and Procedure of Arijan Ademi v. Union of European Football Associations, Award of 24 March 2017|297
3|7 The CAS Holding and Analysis in Arijan Ademi v. Union of European Football Associations, Award of 24 March 2017|298
3|8 Conclusion|301
1|463559_1_En_1_Chapter_OnlinePDF|302
2|1 CAS 2016/A/4474 Michel Platini v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association, Award of 9 May 2016|302
3|Abstract|302
3|1 Facts and Procedure of the Case|303
3|2 Decision of the CAS Panel and Comment|308
4|2.1 The Acceptance of an Undue Advantage in Relation to the CHF 2 Million Payment|308
5|2.1.1 Lack of Existence of the Purported Oral Contract|308
6|Burden of Proof and Standard of Proof|308
6|Merits|310
5|2.1.2 Lack of Binding Character of the Purported Oral Contract|312
5|2.1.3 The Possible Effects of the Payment Made by FIFA|313
4|2.2 The Acceptance of an Undue Advantage in Relation to the Extension of the FIFA Executive Committee’s Pension Plan|314
4|2.3 The Conflict of Interest in Relation to Mr. Platini’s Declaration of Support to Mr. Blatter’s Reelection in 2011 and Participation in the FIFA Finance Committee’s Meeting Approving the CHF 2 Million Payment|315
4|2.4 The Reduction of the Sanction Pronounced Against Mr. Platini|316
3|3 Conclusion|318
3|References|319
1|463559_1_En_21_Chapter_OnlinePDF|320
2|21 CAS 2015/A/4094, Lassana Diarra v. FC Lokomotiv Moscow, Award of 27 May 2016|320
3|Abstract|320
3|1 Facts and Procedure of the Case|321
4|1.1 The Decision of the FIFA DRC|322
3|2 The Appeal Before the CAS|323
4|2.1 Applicable Law|324
4|2.2 Merits of the Appeal: Did the Club Terminate the Contract with Just Cause?|325
5|2.2.1 Whether or not the Player Was Authorized to Return to France, Missing the Team Event|325
5|2.2.2 Whether or not the Player’s Absence During the Pre-Season Training Was Justified and/or Authorized|326
5|2.2.3 Whether the Player’s Absence Was Justified by His Mental Illness|326
5|2.2.4 Did the Club Breach the Contract for not Having Allowed Him to Play and for Having Suspended the Payment of His Salary?|327
5|2.2.5 Whether the Time Window for the Club to Terminate the Contract Had Elapsed|327
3|3 Conclusions by the CAS Panel|328
3|4 The Decision of the Tribunal of Charleroi|329
3|5 Conclusions|331
3|6 Addendum by Antonio Rigozzi|332
3|References|335
1|463559_1_En_9_Chapter_OnlinePDF|336
2|9 CAS 2015/A/4256, Feyenoord Rotterdam N.V. v. UEFA, Award of 24 June 2016|336
3|Abstract|336
3|1 Facts and Procedure of the Case|337
4|1.1 Introduction|337
4|1.2 Facts and Procedure|337
3|2 Establishing a Racist Act|338
4|2.1 The Facts Contained in the Referee’s Report|339
4|2.2 The Applicable Definition of Racism and the Reasonable Onlooker Test|340
4|2.3 Can Racism Be Unintentional?|343
3|3 Disciplinary Sanctions and the Principle of Equal Treatment|344
3|4 Conclusion|345
3|References|346
1|463559_1_En_7_Chapter_OnlinePDF|347
2|7 CAS 2015/A/4233, World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Martin Johnsrud Sundby & Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS), Award of 11 July 2016|347
3|Abstract|347
3|1 Introduction|348
3|2 Factual Background and Procedure|348
4|2.1 Facts|348
4|2.2 The Parties’ Submissions Before the CAS|350
3|3 Commentary|353
4|3.1 Jurisdiction and Applicable Law|353
4|3.2 Did Sundby Commit an Anti-Doping Rule Violation?|353
5|3.2.1 The Principle of Legal Certainty|354
5|3.2.2 Burden of Proof and Appreciation of Scientific Evidence|357
5|3.2.3 The Evolution of the β2A Provision|358
4|3.3 The Consequences of the Anti-Doping Rule Violation|359
4|3.4 Application of the ‘Cilic Test’|360
3|4 Concluding Remarks|362
3|Reference|363
1|463559_1_En_5_Chapter_OnlinePDF|364
2|5 CAS 2015/A/4351, Vsl Pakruojo FK, Darius Jankauskas, Armas Mikaitis, Sigitas Olberkis, Valdas Pocevicius, Alfredas Skroblas, Donatas Strockis, Diogo Gouveia Miranda, C.H. Alexandru, Taras Michailiuk v. Lithuanian Football Federation, Award of 13 July 2016|364
3|Abstract|364
3|1 Facts and Procedure of the Case|365
3|2 The Parties’ Position in the Appeal to the CAS|367
3|3 The CAS Ruling|369
3|4 Analysis and Conclusions|371
3|Reference|376
1|463559_1_En_20_Chapter_OnlinePDF|377
2|20 CAS 2016/A/4492, Galatasaray v. UEFA, Award of 3 October 2016|377
3|Abstract|377
3|1 Facts and Procedure|378
3|2 Commentary|378
4|2.1 EU Law as Applicable Law|379
4|2.2 The Application of EU Law to the CL&FFP Regulations|381
5|2.2.1 The Application of Article 101 and 102 TFEU|381
5|2.2.2 The Application of the EU Free Movement Rights|388
4|2.3 The Proportionality of the Sanctions Imposed by the CFCB Decision|388
3|3 Conclusion|390
3|References|390
1|463559_1_En_3_PartFrontmatter_OnlinePDF|392
2|Sports Arbitration and National Courts|392
1|463559_1_En_16_Chapter_OnlinePDF|393
2|16 Sports Arbitration Cases Before the Swiss Federal Tribunal in 2016—A Digest|393
3|Abstract|393
3|1 Introduction|394
3|2 Summaries of the SFT’s Decisions Rendered Between 1 January and 31 December 2016|395
4|2.1 Article 190(2)(a) PILA—Irregular Constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal|395
5|2.1.1 SFT 4A_510/2015, Decision of 8 March 2016|395
5|2.1.2 SFT 4A_132/2016, Decision of 30 June 2016|396
4|2.2 Article 190(2)(b) PILA—Incorrect Decision on Jurisdiction|397
5|2.2.1 SFT 4A_222/2015, Decision of 28 January 2016 (Johan Bruyneel v. USADA & WADA)|397
5|2.2.2 SFT 4A_102/2016, Decision of 27 September 2016 (Th. Bellchambers et al. v. WADA, AFL, ASADA, i.e. the Essendon Case)|399
4|2.3 Article 190(2)(c) PILA—Award Ultra, Extra or Infra Petita|401
5|2.3.1 SFT 4A_678/2015, Decision of 22 March 2016|401
4|2.4 Article 190(2)(d) PILA—Violation of the Parties’ Right to Be Heard and Equal Treatment|402
5|2.4.1 SFT 4A_678/2015, Decision of 22 March 2016|402
5|2.4.2 SFT 4A_202/2016, Decision of 3 August 2016|402
4|2.5 Article 190(2)(e) PILA—Award Contravening Public Policy|403
5|2.5.1 SFT 4A_510/2015, Decision of 8 March 2016|403
5|2.5.2 SFT 4A_132/2016, Decision of 30 June 2016|404
5|2.5.3 SFT 4A_536/2016 and 4A_540/2016, Decision of 26 October 2016|404
5|2.5.4 SFT 4A_116/2016, Decision of 13 December 2016 (Sporting v. Doyen)|406
5|2.5.5 SFT 4A_32/2016, Decision of 20 December 2016|407
3|References|412
1|463559_1_En_4_Chapter_OnlinePDF|413
2|4 Bundesgerichtshof, Az. KZR 6/15, Pechstein v. International Skating Union (ISU), 7 June 2016|413
3|Abstract|413
3|1 Introduction|414
3|2 Facts and Proceedings|414
3|3 Commentary|417
4|3.1 The Decision Rendered by the BGH|417
4|3.2 The Structural Imbalance When Selecting CAS Arbitrators|419
4|3.3 The Athletes’ Voluntary Consent to CAS Arbitration|420
3|4 Pechstein’s Action Before the ECtHR|421
3|5 Conclusion|424
3|References|425
1|463559_1_En_BookFrontmatter_OnlinePDF|2
2|Editorial|6
2|Contents|9
2|Abbreviations|12
1|463559_1_En_1_PartFrontmatter_OnlinePDF|14
2|General Articles|14
1|463559_1_En_15_Chapter_OnlinePDF|15
2|15 Back to the Future: The First CAS Arbitrators on CAS’s First Award (TAS 86/1, HC X. c. LSHG) and Its Evolution Since Then|15
3|Abstract|15
3|1 Introduction|16
3|References|28
1|463559_1_En_13_Chapter_OnlinePDF|29
2|13 Applicability of Swiss Law in Doping Cases Before the CAS and the Swiss Federal Tribunal|29
3|Abstract|29
3|1 Introduction|30
3|2 Application of Swiss Law to the Procedure of a Doping Case (Lex Arbitri) and the Grounds for Setting Aside a CAS award Before the SFT|31
4|2.1 Independence and Impartiality of Arbitrators in Doping-Related Cases|33
4|2.2 Swiss Law When Determining Arbitrability of the Dispute and Jurisdiction of CAS in Doping-Related Cases|34
5|2.2.1 General|34
6|The Example of the Essendon Case—Swiss Law and Scope of Review of the CAS Panel in Appeal|36
5|2.2.2 Violation of the Principles Ne Ultra Petita—Ne Infra Petita|37
5|2.2.3 The Parties’ Right to Be Heard and the Right to Equal Treatment|38
5|2.2.4 Violation of Public Policy in Doping-Related Cases|38
5|2.2.5 Application of Swiss Procedural Law to Doping-Related Procedures Before CAS—Specific Questions|40
6|Swiss Law and Evidentiary Issues in Doping Cases|40
6|Ne Bis in Idem, Doping Procedures and CAS Case Law|41
6|Stay of the CAS Doping Proceedings Pending Criminal Proceedings in Another Country|42
6|Provisional Measures Before the CAS and Before the SFT|42
3|3 Application of Swiss Law to the Merits of a Doping Case|45
4|3.1 The CAS Code and the CAS Case Law|45
4|3.2 “Swiss Law Applies Subsidiarily”—Examples from Doping-Related Procedures|47
4|3.3 Specific Provisions of Swiss Law and Doping: Personality Rights and Article 28 Swiss Civil Code|48
4|3.4 Proportionality|48
3|4 Concluding Remarks|50
3|References|50
1|463559_1_En_17_Chapter_OnlinePDF|52
2|17 Standing to Appeal of Third Parties in Front of CAS|52
3|Abstract|52
3|1 Legal Concept of Locus Standi|53
4|1.1 Rationale of Standing to Appeal in Sports Arbitration|53
4|1.2 Legal Nature of Standing to Appeal|54
4|1.3 Distinction From the Right to Intervene Pursuant to R41.3 CAS Code|55
4|1.4 Legal Framework|55
5|1.4.1 Association Regulations|56
5|1.4.2 Swiss Law|56
3|2 CAS Jurisprudence Regarding Standing to Appeal|57
4|2.1 CAS 2002/O/373, COC & Beckie Scott v. IOC, Award of 18 December 2003|57
4|2.2 CAS/A/1583&1584, Benfica v. UEFA & FC Porto, Vitória Guimarães v. UEFA & FC Porto, Award of 15 July 2008|59
4|2.3 CAS 2015/A/4151, Panathinaikos FC v. UEFA & Olympiakos FC, Award of 26 November 2015|61
4|2.4 CAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania (FAA) v. UEFA & Football Association of Serbia (FAS), Award of 10 July 2015|62
3|3 Comparison to Other Fields of Law|64
4|3.1 Public Law|64
5|3.1.1 Anti-Doping Rule Violations|66
5|3.1.2 Eligibility for UEFA Competitions|67
4|3.2 Criminal Law|68
3|4 Conclusion|69
3|References|70
1|463559_1_En_14_Chapter_OnlinePDF|71
2|14 The Russian Doping Scandal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport: Lessons for the World Anti-Doping System|71
3|Abstract|71
3|1 Introduction|72
3|2 The ‘IAAF Award’|75
4|2.1 From the ARD Documentary to the Ineligibility of Russian Athletes for the Rio Olympics|75
4|2.2 The Key Legal Questions at the CAS|78
5|2.2.1 Does the Suspension of the RusAF Under Rule 22.1(a) Extend to the Eligibility of the Russian Athletes?|78
5|2.2.2 Is IAAF Competition Rule 22.1A Valid and Enforceable in the Circumstances of the Present Dispute?|82
5|2.2.3 Can the ROC Nominate Athletes to the Olympic Games Without the Assent of the IAAF?|83
5|2.2.4 Will the Russian Athletes Enjoying the Exception Enshrined in Rule 22.1A Compete as Neutral Athletes?|84
3|3 The Russian Doping Scandal at the CAS Ad Hoc Division|85
4|3.1 The Efimova Case: Saved by the Osaka Déjà-Vu|85
4|3.2 On Being Implicated Under the IOC Decision|87
5|3.2.1 CAS OG 16/19 Natalia Podolskaya & Alexander Dyachenko v. ICF|87
5|3.2.2 CAS OG 16/21 Elena Anyushina & Alexey Korovashkov v. ICF & RCF|89
5|3.2.3 CAS OG 16/12 Ivan Balandin v. FISA & IOC|91
4|3.3 On Being Sufficiently Tested Under the IOC Decision|92
4|3.4 On Bringing Weightlifting into Disrepute|94
4|3.5 Saving the Last Russian Woman Standing: The Klishina Miracle|96
5|3.5.1 The IAAF’s Second Thoughts Over the Implication of Klishina|96
5|3.5.2 The Surprising Decision of the CAS to Let Klishina Jump|97
4|3.6 Conclusion|100
3|4 The ‘IPC Award’|101
4|4.1 Did the RPC Fail to Comply with Its Membership Obligations?|101
4|4.2 Is the Sanction Imposed by the IPC Proportionate?|102
5|4.2.1 Whose Rights Are Disproportionately Affected?|103
5|4.2.2 The Extraordinary Nature of the RPC’s Regulatory Failure|103
5|4.2.3 The Proportionality of the Sanction|104
3|5 Conclusion|106
3|References|109
1|463559_1_En_22_Chapter_OnlinePDF|111
2|22 The Basketball Arbitral Tribunal’s 2017 Rules|111
3|Abstract|111
3|1 Introduction|112
3|2 Main Changes Introduced by the BAT Rules 2017—An Overview|113
4|2.1 BAT President’s and Secretariat’s Functions|114
4|2.2 Costs Issues|116
4|2.3 Awards—Contents and Notification|118
3|3 Conclusion|121
3|References|121
1|463559_1_En_2_PartFrontmatter_OnlinePDF|122
2|Commentaries of CAS Awards|122
1|463559_1_En_3_Chapter_OnlinePDF|123
2|3 CAS 2015/A/3920 Fédération Royale Marocaine de Football v. Confédération Africaine de Football, Award of 17 November 2015|123
3|Abstract|123
3|1 Facts and Procedure|124
3|2 CAS Jurisdiction|126
3|3 The Applicable AFCON Regulations|128
3|4 The “Healing” of Lower-Instance Procedural Defects on Appeal|128
3|5 The Absence of Force Majeure|130
3|6 The Violation of the CAF Regulations|131
4|6.1 The Decision to Withdraw from the Organisation of the Competition|131
4|6.2 Was There a Governmental Interference in Football Matters?|132
5|6.2.1 Government’s Duty to Intervene When Public Health Is in Danger|133
5|6.2.2 The Government’s Co-organisation Ability|133
3|7 The Application of the Proportionality Test and of the Principle nulla poena sine culpa|134
4|7.1 The Application of the Proportionality Test|134
4|7.2 The Application of the nulla poena sine culpa Principle|135
3|8 Conclusion|136
3|Reference|137
1|463559_1_En_10_Chapter_OnlinePDF|138
2|10 CAS 2015/A/4151, Panathinaikos FC v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) & Olympiakos FC, Award of 26 November 2015 (Operative Part of 24 August 2015)|138
3|Abstract|138
3|1 Facts and Procedure of the Case|139
4|1.1 Sport-Related Facts|139
4|1.2 Proceedings in Greece Against Mr. Marinakis|140
4|1.3 Proceedings in Front of the UEFA Bodies|140
5|1.3.1 The First Proceedings and the Appealed Decision—The “First Referral”|140
5|1.3.2 The Respondent’s Complaint Before the UEFA Bodies—The “Second Referral”|142
3|2 Legal Basis at the Centre of the Dispute|142
3|3 Proceedings Before the CAS|144
4|3.1 Parties’ Arguments|144
5|3.1.1 Arguments of the Appellant|144
5|3.1.2 Arguments of the Respondents|146
3|4 The Panel’s Legal Considerations|149
4|4.1 Admissibility—Obligation to be a Party in Front of the Previous Instances?|149
4|4.2 Merits of the Appeal|150
5|4.2.1 Did Panathinaikos Have Standing to Sue?|150
3|5 Observations|152
4|5.1 Preliminary Observation as to the Procedure Followed at UEFA Level|152
4|5.2 Administrative Measure Versus Disciplinary Measure|153
4|5.3 Standing to Sue|154
3|6 Conclusion|156
1|463559_1_En_8_Chapter_OnlinePDF|157
2|8 CAS 2015/A/3891, Kasimpasa Spor Kulübü v. Fernando Varela Ramos, Award of 10 December 2015|157
3|Abstract|157
3|1 Facts and Procedure|158
4|1.1 The Parties|158
4|1.2 Factual Background|158
3|2 Merits|160
4|2.1 Did the Player’s Absence Constitute a Just Cause for a Termination of the Contract?|160
3|3 Comment|162
4|3.1 When Does the Absence from Work/Trainings of a Player Constitute a Just Cause for a Termination?|162
4|3.2 The Importance of Witness Testimony at the Hearing|167
5|3.2.1 Are Counsel Allowed to Prepare Witnesses for a CAS Hearing?|168
4|3.3 The Calculation of the Compensation Due to the Termination Without Just Cause|169
3|4 Conclusion|170
3|References|170
1|463559_1_En_6_Chapter_OnlinePDF|171
2|6 CAS 2015/A/4105, PFC CSKA Moscow v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) & Football Club Midtjylland A/S, Award of 21 December 2015|171
3|Abstract|171
3|1 Facts and Procedure of the Case|172
4|1.1 Facts|172
4|1.2 Procedural Background|173
3|2 Submissions of the Parties|174
4|2.1 CSKA|174
4|2.2 FIFA|175
4|2.3 Midtjylland|176
3|3 Considerations of the Sole Arbitrator|176
4|3.1 Applicable Law|176
4|3.2 The Parties’ Agreement Concerning the Solidarity Contribution|177
4|3.3 Admissibility of the Claim in Front of FIFA|179
5|3.3.1 Regulatory Framework|179
5|3.3.2 The Event Giving Rise to the Dispute|180
4|3.4 The Obligation to Midtjylland to Reimburse CSKA|181
4|3.5 Summary|182
3|4 Observations|183
4|4.1 The Statute of Limitations|183
4|4.2 The Validity of the Agreement Concerning Solidarity Contribution|184
4|4.3 The Claim for Compensation of Losses|185
4|4.4 Procedural Remarks|186
3|5 Conclusion and Key Take-Aways for Legal Practice|187
3|References|188
1|463559_1_En_11_Chapter_OnlinePDF|189
2|11 CAS 2014/O/3781 & 3782 Sporting Clube de Portugal Futebol SAD v. Doyen Sports, Award of 21 December 2015|189
3|Abstract|189
3|1 Facts and Procedure|190
3|2 The Reasoning of the CAS|191
4|2.1 Are Doyen’s ERPAs Legal?|191
5|2.1.1 Is the Performance of the ERPAs Unlawful Under Swiss Law?|192
5|2.1.2 Is the Performance of the ERPAs Immoral Under Swiss Law?|194
5|2.1.3 Is the ERPA an Excessive Restriction on Sporting’s Economic Freedom?|196
5|2.1.4 Are the ERPAs Contrary to EU Law, the European Convention on Human Rights or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?|197
4|2.2 Has Sporting Unlawfully Breached the ERPA?|198
3|3 Conclusion: Is FIFA’s TPO Ban at Risk?|200
3|References|202
1|463559_1_En_19_Chapter_OnlinePDF|203
2|19 CAS 2015/A/4059, WADA v. Thomas Bellchambers et al., Award of 11 January 2016|203
3|Abstract|203
3|1 Introduction|204
3|2 Facts and Procedure of the Case|205
4|2.1 Background|205
4|2.2 AFL Tribunal Proceeding|206
4|2.3 CAS Proceeding|207
3|3 Commentary|207
4|3.1 Jurisdiction and Applicable Law|208
5|3.1.1 CAS Award|208
5|3.1.2 Comments|209
4|3.2 Power and Scope of the CAS Panel’s Review on Appeal|213
5|3.2.1 CAS Award|213
5|3.2.2 Comments|214
4|3.3 Proving an Anti-doping Rule Violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance|220
5|3.3.1 Admissibility of Evidence at the CAS|220
5|3.3.2 Evaluation of the Evidence|223
4|3.4 Sanction|236
5|3.4.1 CAS Award|236
5|3.4.2 Comment|239
3|4 Conclusion|243
3|References|244
1|463559_1_En_2_Chapter_OnlinePDF|245
2|2 CAS 2014/A/3852, Ascoli Calcio 1898 S.p.A. v. Papa Waigo N’diaye & Al Wahda Sports and Cultural Club, Award of 11 January 2016|245
3|Abstract|245
3|1 Facts and Procedure|246
4|1.1 The Parties|246
4|1.2 The Facts|246
4|1.3 The Arguments|247
5|1.3.1 Ascoli’s Arguments|247
6|Jurisdiction|247
6|On the Merits|248
5|1.3.2 The Player’s Arguments|249
6|Jurisdiction|249
6|On the Merits|249
5|1.3.3 Al Wadha’s Arguments|250
4|1.4 The CAS Decision|250
5|1.4.1 Jurisdiction|250
5|1.4.2 On the Merits|251
3|2 Commentary|255
4|2.1 Introduction|255
4|2.2 The Validity of Unilateral Extension Options in General|256
4|2.3 The Validity of the Unilateral Extension Option in This Case|260
4|2.4 The Validity of Unilateral Extension Options in the Future|262
3|3 Conclusion|266
3|References|267
1|463559_1_En_18_Chapter_OnlinePDF|268
2|18 CAS 2015/A/4162 Liga Deportiva Alajuelense v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), Award of 3 February 2016|268
3|Abstract|268
3|1 Facts and Procedure of the Case|269
3|2 The CAS’ Reasoning|271
4|2.1 The Relevant Provisions|271
4|2.2 Merits|272
5|2.2.1 Standing to Sue|272
5|2.2.2 The Nature of the Enforcement Proceedings According to Article 64 FDC|273
5|2.2.3 The Relevance of Foreign Insolvency Proceedings in the Context of Disciplinary Proceedings According to Article 64 FDC|273
5|2.2.4 Exceptions to the Above Principles|274
5|2.2.5 The Particularities of this Case|275
3|3 Analysis of the CAS’ Reasoning|277
4|3.1 Introduction|277
4|3.2 Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code|278
4|3.3 2011 Amendment of Article 64 FDC|280
4|3.4 Validity of Self-Enforcement Remedies|281
4|3.5 Application of Article 64 FDC and Article 107(b) FDC in the Present Case|283
3|References|288
1|463559_1_En_12_Chapter_OnlinePDF|289
2|12 CAS 2016/A/4439, Thomasz Hamerlak v. International Paralympic Committee, Award of 4 July 2016, CAS 2016/A/4676, Arijan Ademi v. Union of European Football Associations, Award of 24 March 2017 and CAS 2016/A/4534, Mauricio Fiol Villanueva v. Fédération Internationale de Natation, Award of 16 March 2017|289
3|Abstract|289
3|1 Article 10.2.1 of the 2015 WADA Code|290
3|2 Facts and Procedure of Tomasz Hamerlak v. International Paralympic Committee, Award of 4 July 2016|291
3|3 The CAS Holding and Analysis in Hamerlak v. International Paralympic Committee, Award of 4 July 2016|292
3|4 Facts and Procedure of Fiol Villanueva v. Fédération Internationale de Natation, Award of 16 March 2017|293
3|5 The CAS Holding and Analysis in Fiol Villanueva v. Fédération Internationale de Natation, Award of 16 March 2017|294
3|6 Facts and Procedure of Arijan Ademi v. Union of European Football Associations, Award of 24 March 2017|297
3|7 The CAS Holding and Analysis in Arijan Ademi v. Union of European Football Associations, Award of 24 March 2017|298
3|8 Conclusion|301
1|463559_1_En_1_Chapter_OnlinePDF|302
2|1 CAS 2016/A/4474 Michel Platini v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association, Award of 9 May 2016|302
3|Abstract|302
3|1 Facts and Procedure of the Case|303
3|2 Decision of the CAS Panel and Comment|308
4|2.1 The Acceptance of an Undue Advantage in Relation to the CHF 2 Million Payment|308
5|2.1.1 Lack of Existence of the Purported Oral Contract|308
6|Burden of Proof and Standard of Proof|308
6|Merits|310
5|2.1.2 Lack of Binding Character of the Purported Oral Contract|312
5|2.1.3 The Possible Effects of the Payment Made by FIFA|313
4|2.2 The Acceptance of an Undue Advantage in Relation to the Extension of the FIFA Executive Committee’s Pension Plan|314
4|2.3 The Conflict of Interest in Relation to Mr. Platini’s Declaration of Support to Mr. Blatter’s Reelection in 2011 and Participation in the FIFA Finance Committee’s Meeting Approving the CHF 2 Million Payment|315
4|2.4 The Reduction of the Sanction Pronounced Against Mr. Platini|316
3|3 Conclusion|318
3|References|319
1|463559_1_En_21_Chapter_OnlinePDF|320
2|21 CAS 2015/A/4094, Lassana Diarra v. FC Lokomotiv Moscow, Award of 27 May 2016|320
3|Abstract|320
3|1 Facts and Procedure of the Case|321
4|1.1 The Decision of the FIFA DRC|322
3|2 The Appeal Before the CAS|323
4|2.1 Applicable Law|324
4|2.2 Merits of the Appeal: Did the Club Terminate the Contract with Just Cause?|325
5|2.2.1 Whether or not the Player Was Authorized to Return to France, Missing the Team Event|325
5|2.2.2 Whether or not the Player’s Absence During the Pre-Season Training Was Justified and/or Authorized|326
5|2.2.3 Whether the Player’s Absence Was Justified by His Mental Illness|326
5|2.2.4 Did the Club Breach the Contract for not Having Allowed Him to Play and for Having Suspended the Payment of His Salary?|327
5|2.2.5 Whether the Time Window for the Club to Terminate the Contract Had Elapsed|327
3|3 Conclusions by the CAS Panel|328
3|4 The Decision of the Tribunal of Charleroi|329
3|5 Conclusions|331
3|6 Addendum by Antonio Rigozzi|332
3|References|335
1|463559_1_En_9_Chapter_OnlinePDF|336
2|9 CAS 2015/A/4256, Feyenoord Rotterdam N.V. v. UEFA, Award of 24 June 2016|336
3|Abstract|336
3|1 Facts and Procedure of the Case|337
4|1.1 Introduction|337
4|1.2 Facts and Procedure|337
3|2 Establishing a Racist Act|338
4|2.1 The Facts Contained in the Referee’s Report|339
4|2.2 The Applicable Definition of Racism and the Reasonable Onlooker Test|340
4|2.3 Can Racism Be Unintentional?|343
3|3 Disciplinary Sanctions and the Principle of Equal Treatment|344
3|4 Conclusion|345
3|References|346
1|463559_1_En_7_Chapter_OnlinePDF|347
2|7 CAS 2015/A/4233, World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Martin Johnsrud Sundby & Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS), Award of 11 July 2016|347
3|Abstract|347
3|1 Introduction|348
3|2 Factual Background and Procedure|348
4|2.1 Facts|348
4|2.2 The Parties’ Submissions Before the CAS|350
3|3 Commentary|353
4|3.1 Jurisdiction and Applicable Law|353
4|3.2 Did Sundby Commit an Anti-Doping Rule Violation?|353
5|3.2.1 The Principle of Legal Certainty|354
5|3.2.2 Burden of Proof and Appreciation of Scientific Evidence|357
5|3.2.3 The Evolution of the β2A Provision|358
4|3.3 The Consequences of the Anti-Doping Rule Violation|359
4|3.4 Application of the ‘Cilic Test’|360
3|4 Concluding Remarks|362
3|Reference|363
1|463559_1_En_5_Chapter_OnlinePDF|364
2|5 CAS 2015/A/4351, Vsl Pakruojo FK, Darius Jankauskas, Armas Mikaitis, Sigitas Olberkis, Valdas Pocevicius, Alfredas Skroblas, Donatas Strockis, Diogo Gouveia Miranda, C.H. Alexandru, Taras Michailiuk v. Lithuanian Football Federation, Award of 13 July 2016|364
3|Abstract|364
3|1 Facts and Procedure of the Case|365
3|2 The Parties’ Position in the Appeal to the CAS|367
3|3 The CAS Ruling|369
3|4 Analysis and Conclusions|371
3|Reference|376
1|463559_1_En_20_Chapter_OnlinePDF|377
2|20 CAS 2016/A/4492, Galatasaray v. UEFA, Award of 3 October 2016|377
3|Abstract|377
3|1 Facts and Procedure|378
3|2 Commentary|378
4|2.1 EU Law as Applicable Law|379
4|2.2 The Application of EU Law to the CL&FFP Regulations|381
5|2.2.1 The Application of Article 101 and 102 TFEU|381
5|2.2.2 The Application of the EU Free Movement Rights|388
4|2.3 The Proportionality of the Sanctions Imposed by the CFCB Decision|388
3|3 Conclusion|390
3|References|390
1|463559_1_En_3_PartFrontmatter_OnlinePDF|392
2|Sports Arbitration and National Courts|392
1|463559_1_En_16_Chapter_OnlinePDF|393
2|16 Sports Arbitration Cases Before the Swiss Federal Tribunal in 2016—A Digest|393
3|Abstract|393
3|1 Introduction|394
3|2 Summaries of the SFT’s Decisions Rendered Between 1 January and 31 December 2016|395
4|2.1 Article 190(2)(a) PILA—Irregular Constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal|395
5|2.1.1 SFT 4A_510/2015, Decision of 8 March 2016|395
5|2.1.2 SFT 4A_132/2016, Decision of 30 June 2016|396
4|2.2 Article 190(2)(b) PILA—Incorrect Decision on Jurisdiction|397
5|2.2.1 SFT 4A_222/2015, Decision of 28 January 2016 (Johan Bruyneel v. USADA & WADA)|397
5|2.2.2 SFT 4A_102/2016, Decision of 27 September 2016 (Th. Bellchambers et al. v. WADA, AFL, ASADA, i.e. the Essendon Case)|399
4|2.3 Article 190(2)(c) PILA—Award Ultra, Extra or Infra Petita|401
5|2.3.1 SFT 4A_678/2015, Decision of 22 March 2016|401
4|2.4 Article 190(2)(d) PILA—Violation of the Parties’ Right to Be Heard and Equal Treatment|402
5|2.4.1 SFT 4A_678/2015, Decision of 22 March 2016|402
5|2.4.2 SFT 4A_202/2016, Decision of 3 August 2016|402
4|2.5 Article 190(2)(e) PILA—Award Contravening Public Policy|403
5|2.5.1 SFT 4A_510/2015, Decision of 8 March 2016|403
5|2.5.2 SFT 4A_132/2016, Decision of 30 June 2016|404
5|2.5.3 SFT 4A_536/2016 and 4A_540/2016, Decision of 26 October 2016|404
5|2.5.4 SFT 4A_116/2016, Decision of 13 December 2016 (Sporting v. Doyen)|406
5|2.5.5 SFT 4A_32/2016, Decision of 20 December 2016|407
3|References|412
1|463559_1_En_4_Chapter_OnlinePDF|413
2|4 Bundesgerichtshof, Az. KZR 6/15, Pechstein v. International Skating Union (ISU), 7 June 2016|413
3|Abstract|413
3|1 Introduction|414
3|2 Facts and Proceedings|414
3|3 Commentary|417
4|3.1 The Decision Rendered by the BGH|417
4|3.2 The Structural Imbalance When Selecting CAS Arbitrators|419
4|3.3 The Athletes’ Voluntary Consent to CAS Arbitration|420
3|4 Pechstein’s Action Before the ECtHR|421
3|5 Conclusion|424
3|References|425