Jump to content

Court of Arbitration for Sport: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Jurisdiction: Found a source. FIFA was apparantly the last to accept CAS, but they had done so before 2004.
Ref clean-up
Line 2: Line 2:


==Jurisdiction==
==Jurisdiction==
Generally speaking, a dispute may be submitted to the CAS only if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties which specifies recourse to the CAS. According to rule 61 of the Olympic Charter all disputes in connection with the Olympic Games can only be submitted to CAS.<ref name="olympic1">http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf</ref>
Generally speaking, a dispute may be submitted to the CAS only if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties which specifies recourse to the CAS. According to rule 61 of the Olympic Charter all disputes in connection with the Olympic Games can only be submitted to CAS.<ref name="olympic1">[[International Olympic Committe]]: [http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf Olympic Charter]</ref>
All Olympic [[List of international sport federations|International Federations]] have recognised the jurisdiction of CAS for at least some disputes.<ref>http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1482&context=sportslaw&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dwho%2520recognise%2520the%2520court%2520of%2520arbitration%2520for%2520sports%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D6%26cad%3Drja%26ved%3D0CFQQFjAF%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.marquette.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1482%2526context%253Dsportslaw%26ei%3DYv9MUcq1COjR4QTE84DwBg%26usg%3DAFQjCNEpBWdZsLFk_kgCcBAm41sJNpFs4Q%26bvm%3Dbv.44158598%2Cd.bGE#search=%22who%20recognise%20court%20arbitration%20sports%22</ref>
All Olympic [[List of international sport federations|International Federations]] have recognised the jurisdiction of CAS for at least some disputes.<ref>Richard H. McLaren, [http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1482&context=sportslaw Twenty-Five Years of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: A Look in the Rear-View Mirror, 20 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 305] (2010)</ref>
Through compliance with the 2009 [[World Anti-Doping Agency|World Anti-Doping Code]] all signatories, including all Olympic International Federations and [[National Olympic Committee]]s, have recognised the jurisdiction of CAS for [[Doping in sport|anti-doping rule violations]].<ref name="olympic1"/><ref>http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v2009_en.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.academia.edu/1190383/The_Supervisory_Role_of_the_Court_of_Arbitration_for_Sport_in_Regulating_the_International_Sport_System</ref>
Through compliance with the 2009 [[World Anti-Doping Agency|World Anti-Doping Code]] all signatories, including all Olympic International Federations and [[National Olympic Committee]]s, have recognised the jurisdiction of CAS for [[Doping in sport|anti-doping rule violations]].<ref name="olympic1"/><ref>[[World Anti-Doping Agency]]: [http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v2009_en.pdf 2009 World Anti-Doping Code]</ref><ref>Hilary Findlay and Marcus F. Mazzucco: [http://www.academia.edu/1190383/The_Supervisory_Role_of_the_Court_of_Arbitration_for_Sport_in_Regulating_the_International_Sport_System The Supervisory Role of the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Regulating the International Sport System]</ref>
Decisions of CAS can be appealed to the [[Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland|Swiss Federal Tribunal]].<ref>http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/6110/5048/0/Media20Release20FC20Sion.pdf</ref>
Decisions of CAS can be appealed to the [[Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland|Swiss Federal Tribunal]].<ref>Court of Arbitration for Sport: [http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/6110/5048/0/Media20Release20FC20Sion.pdf Media release 23 July 2012]</ref>


==History==
==History==
Line 15: Line 15:


==Jurisprudence==
==Jurisprudence==
In November 2009 CAS decided its first case on [[biological passport|athlete biological passports]], when it upheld the two year suspension of skater [[Claudia Pechstein]]. In March 2011 the court suspended two Italian cyclists, [[Franco Pellizotti]] and [[Pietro Caucchioli]], for two years based on evidence from their blood profiles.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/sports/cycling/09cycling.html?_r=1</ref>
In November 2009 CAS decided its first case on [[biological passport|athlete biological passports]], when it upheld the two year suspension of skater [[Claudia Pechstein]]. In March 2011 the court suspended two Italian cyclists, [[Franco Pellizotti]] and [[Pietro Caucchioli]], for two years based on evidence from their blood profiles.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/sports/cycling/09cycling.html?_r=1 Court Upholds Cyclist’s Ban Based on Biological Passport] New York Times. Retrieved 24 March 2013</ref>


In October 2011, in a case affecting the [[2012 Summer Olympics]], the court declared that a part of the [[Olympic Charter]] violated the World Anti-doping Code. The Osaka rule prevented athletes suspended for at least six months for anti-doping rule violations from competing at the Olympic Games following the suspension's expiration. The court later re-affirmed this decision, when it struck down a long-standing by-law of the [[British Olympic Association]] preventing the selection of athletes sanctioned for doping.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/17853070 |title=London 2012: Dwain Chambers eligible after court ruling |publisher=BBC Sport |date=2012-04-30 |accessdate=2012-08-05}}</ref> Both the IOC and BOA have responded by campaigning for adding a similar rule at the next update of the Code, which will be in effect by the [[2016 Summer Olympics]].
In October 2011, in a case affecting the [[2012 Summer Olympics]], the court declared that a part of the [[Olympic Charter]] violated the World Anti-doping Code. The Osaka rule prevented athletes suspended for at least six months for anti-doping rule violations from competing at the Olympic Games following the suspension's expiration. The court later re-affirmed this decision, when it struck down a long-standing by-law of the [[British Olympic Association]] preventing the selection of athletes sanctioned for doping.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/17853070 |title=London 2012: Dwain Chambers eligible after court ruling |publisher=BBC Sport |date=2012-04-30 |accessdate=2012-08-05}}</ref> Both the IOC and BOA have responded by campaigning for adding a similar rule at the next update of the Code, which will be in effect by the [[2016 Summer Olympics]].


The court is reluctant to overturn [[Referee|field of play decisions]], though it may do so in cases where there is clear evidence that the officials acted in bad faith.<ref>http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/6083/5048/0/Award20273120_FINAL_.pdf</ref>
The court is reluctant to overturn [[Referee|field of play decisions]], though it may do so in cases where there is clear evidence that the officials acted in bad faith.<ref>Court of Arbitration for Sport:[http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/6083/5048/0/Award20273120_FINAL_.pdf CAS 2012/A/2731 ''BOC & BTC & Márcio W. Ferreira v/ WTF & COM & FMT & Damian A.Villa Valadez'']</ref>


The court ruled in 2006 that [[Gibraltar Football Association|Gibraltar]] had valid grounds for its application to join [[UEFA]], forcing the organisation to hand it provisional membership. At the next UEFA Congress, however, Gibraltar was overwhelmingly rejected in a vote, due to lobbying from [[Spain]], in defiance of the CAS ruling.<ref>{{cite news|title=Gibraltar have failed in their attempt to become a member of Uefa.|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/6302889.stm|publisher=BBC Sport|accessdate=25 June 2012}}</ref>
The court ruled in 2006 that [[Gibraltar Football Association|Gibraltar]] had valid grounds for its application to join [[UEFA]], forcing the organisation to hand it provisional membership. At the next UEFA Congress, however, Gibraltar was overwhelmingly rejected in a vote, due to lobbying from [[Spain]], in defiance of the CAS ruling.<ref>{{cite news|title=Gibraltar have failed in their attempt to become a member of Uefa.|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/6302889.stm|publisher=BBC Sport|accessdate=25 June 2012}}</ref>

Revision as of 00:58, 24 March 2013

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS; French: Tribunal Arbitral du Sport or TAS) is an international arbitration body set up to settle disputes related to sport. Its headquarters are in Lausanne and its courts are located in New York, Sydney and Lausanne, Switzerland. Temporary courts are built in current Olympic host cities.

Jurisdiction

Generally speaking, a dispute may be submitted to the CAS only if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties which specifies recourse to the CAS. According to rule 61 of the Olympic Charter all disputes in connection with the Olympic Games can only be submitted to CAS.[1] All Olympic International Federations have recognised the jurisdiction of CAS for at least some disputes.[2] Through compliance with the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code all signatories, including all Olympic International Federations and National Olympic Committees, have recognised the jurisdiction of CAS for anti-doping rule violations.[1][3][4] Decisions of CAS can be appealed to the Swiss Federal Tribunal.[5]

History

With the intermixing of sports and politics, the body was originally conceived by International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Juan Antonio Samaranch to deal with disputes arising during the Olympics. It was established as part of the IOC in 1984.

In 1994, a case decided by the CAS was appealed to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, challenging CAS impartiality. The Swiss court ruled that the CAS was a true court of arbitration but drew attention to the numerous links between the CAS and the IOC.

In response, the CAS underwent reforms to make itself more independent of the IOC, both organizationally and financially. The biggest change resulting from this reform was the creation of an "International Council of Arbitration for Sport" (ICAS) to look after the running and financing of the CAS, thereby taking the place of the IOC. As of 2004, most recent cases that were considered by the CAS dealt with transfer disputes within professional association football or with doping.

Jurisprudence

In November 2009 CAS decided its first case on athlete biological passports, when it upheld the two year suspension of skater Claudia Pechstein. In March 2011 the court suspended two Italian cyclists, Franco Pellizotti and Pietro Caucchioli, for two years based on evidence from their blood profiles.[6]

In October 2011, in a case affecting the 2012 Summer Olympics, the court declared that a part of the Olympic Charter violated the World Anti-doping Code. The Osaka rule prevented athletes suspended for at least six months for anti-doping rule violations from competing at the Olympic Games following the suspension's expiration. The court later re-affirmed this decision, when it struck down a long-standing by-law of the British Olympic Association preventing the selection of athletes sanctioned for doping.[7] Both the IOC and BOA have responded by campaigning for adding a similar rule at the next update of the Code, which will be in effect by the 2016 Summer Olympics.

The court is reluctant to overturn field of play decisions, though it may do so in cases where there is clear evidence that the officials acted in bad faith.[8]

The court ruled in 2006 that Gibraltar had valid grounds for its application to join UEFA, forcing the organisation to hand it provisional membership. At the next UEFA Congress, however, Gibraltar was overwhelmingly rejected in a vote, due to lobbying from Spain, in defiance of the CAS ruling.[9] In 2010 the Irish Football Association took its case to CAS after FIFA failed to prevent the Football Association of Ireland from selecting Northern-Irish-born players who had no blood link to the Republic.[10] The CAS ruled in favour of the FAI and FIFA by confirming that they were correctly applying the regulations.[11]

References

  1. ^ a b International Olympic Committe: Olympic Charter
  2. ^ Richard H. McLaren, Twenty-Five Years of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: A Look in the Rear-View Mirror, 20 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 305 (2010)
  3. ^ World Anti-Doping Agency: 2009 World Anti-Doping Code
  4. ^ Hilary Findlay and Marcus F. Mazzucco: The Supervisory Role of the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Regulating the International Sport System
  5. ^ Court of Arbitration for Sport: Media release 23 July 2012
  6. ^ Court Upholds Cyclist’s Ban Based on Biological Passport New York Times. Retrieved 24 March 2013
  7. ^ "London 2012: Dwain Chambers eligible after court ruling". BBC Sport. 2012-04-30. Retrieved 2012-08-05.
  8. ^ Court of Arbitration for Sport:CAS 2012/A/2731 BOC & BTC & Márcio W. Ferreira v/ WTF & COM & FMT & Damian A.Villa Valadez
  9. ^ "Gibraltar have failed in their attempt to become a member of Uefa". BBC Sport. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
  10. ^ IFA take case to CAS
  11. ^ Fumagalli, Luigi. "Irish Football Association v/ Football Association of Ireland, Daniel Kearns and FIFA" (PDF). Retrieved 25 June 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Court_of_Arbitration_for_Sport&oldid=546644795"