International Court of Arbitration in Lausanne. Court of Arbitration for Sports

Sports arbitration court in Lausanne (CAS) refused to grant appeals Russian athletes filed against the decision of the IOC not to allow them to the Olympic Games. Thus, the Russian team will miss 47 athletes

CAS refused to consider the decision to exclude athletes as sanctions. Consideration of the remaining cases took place on the night of 9 February. In total, 47 people wrote applications to arbitration, all of their appeals were rejected, according to the decision of the Sports Arbitration, published on the CAS website.

"CAS arbitrators believe that the process organized by the IOC to create a list of invited Russian athletes to participate in the Olympic Games from Russia cannot be called sanctions [against them]," the CAS said.

The court took into account the broad gesture of the IOC to give some of the Russian athletes the opportunity to compete at the Olympics, albeit under neutral flag. This decision was considered by CAS as a step "designed to balance the interests of some athletes from Russia and the interests of the IOC, aimed at the global fight against doping."

“The CAS also found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the way in which they were assessed by the two IOC ad hoc commissions [for the non-admission decision] was discriminatory or unfair,” the court's decision stressed.

Separately, it is noted that illegal actions are not seen in the actions of the Olympic Committee.

The IOC received this news without a hint of joy.

“We welcome the decision of the CAS, it supports the fight against doping and brings clarity [regarding participation in the Games] to all athletes,” the IOC said in a message on the official Twitter channel.

IOC Statement on CAS: We welcome this decision which supports the fight against doping and brings clarity for all athletes.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Similar Documents

Arbitration decision: essence, meaning and main features. The legal force of court decisions, their types and features. Adoption, announcement and appeal of decisions of the arbitration court. The study of its activities in the process of consideration and resolution of the case.

term paper, added 07/07/2014

The concept and types of judicial acts of the arbitration court. Requirements for the decision of the arbitral tribunal. Determination of the arbitration court (form and content). Features of proceedings in cases related to the execution of judicial acts of arbitration courts.

test, added 06/26/2012

The concepts of court decisions and requirements, the definition of the essence of a court decision. Legitimacy, validity, motivation of decisions of the arbitration court. Analysis of the requirements for the decision of the arbitration court as an act of protection of the violated right.

thesis, added 06/20/2010

Law Analysis Russian Federation on the amendment to the Constitution of February 5, 2014 N 2-FKZ "On the Supreme Court and the Prosecutor's Office". Consideration of the main problems arising in the process of unification of the Supreme Arbitration Court and the Supreme Court of the state.

abstract, added 06/02/2014

Characteristics of justice in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activities. Consideration of the stages of the arbitration process. The study of the powers of the arbitration court in enforcement proceedings. Imposition of a fine for failure to appear in court.

test, added 11/25/2015

The concept and types of acts of arbitration courts in the Russian Federation. Essence, meaning, order of making its decision. The legal force of the decision of the arbitral tribunal. Its content and basic requirements for it. Correction of shortcomings of the decision of the arbitration court.

abstract, added 11/13/2013

The history of arbitration courts in Russia, the structure of the arbitration court, the competence of the arbitration court, innovations in arbitration legislation. Legislation on arbitration courts. Improving the arbitration judicial system.

term paper, added 06/27/2003

TASS-DOSIER. February 1, 2018 Sports arbitration The court ruled to uphold the appeals of 28 Russian athletes who were banned for life from the Olympic Games in connection with anti-doping rule violations at XXII winter Olympic Games 2014 in Sochi.

The editors of TASS-DOSIER have prepared material on the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Sports-related dispute resolution is handled by two international organizations: International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) and Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). ICAS manages the organizational and financial affairs of CAS, ensures the independence of CAS and respects the rights of interested parties. CAS deals directly with financial and disciplinary disputes.

In 1981, IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch proposed the creation of a sports legal body. In 1982, a working group led by IOC member Keba Mbaye developed the organization's charter. In 1983, the IOC ratified the document, it entered into force on June 20, 1984. This day is considered the founding day of CAS, Mbaye became the first president of the organization.

In February 1992, German competitive equestrian Elmar Gundel appealed to the CAS against the decision of the International Equestrian Federation, which disqualified him because doping was found in the blood of his horse. The CAS considered Gundel's case and partially granted his protest, reducing the athlete's period of disqualification.

Gundel did not agree with the decision of CAS, appealed to the Swiss Supreme Court with a complaint that CAS is not an independent organization. In March 1993, the Swiss Supreme Court recognized the independence of the CAS from the International Equestrian Federation. At the same time, he noted that CAS is accountable to the IOC, financed mainly from the IOC, that the IOC is authorized to amend the CAS statute and appoint judges.

This decision was the impetus for reforming the CAS. The charter of the organization was completely revised. The main change was the creation of the International Sports Arbitration Board, an organization that took over the administration and finance of the CAS instead of the IOC. Another important result of the reform was the adoption of the Sports Arbitration Code, which entered into force on November 22, 1994 and was subsequently updated in 2004.

Since the CAS reform in 1994, all International Olympic Associations and many National Olympic Committees have recognized its jurisdiction. Since 2003, CAS has also been the final authority in international doping disputes under the code of the World Anti-Doping Agency.

Structure

The working languages of CAS are English and French. Main office organization is located in Lausanne. Two additional regional offices have also been established, in Sydney and New York. During major competitions (since 1996 at the Olympic Games, since 1998 at the Commonwealth Games, at the World and European Football Championships since 2006 and 2000, respectively, since 2014 at the Asian Games), temporary tribunals are created.

ICAS structure

ICAS is composed of 20 qualified lawyers. Four of them are appointed by international sports federations(three - from the Association of International Summer Federations Olympic sports sports, one from the Association of International Olympic Winter Sports Federations); four by the Association of National Olympic Committees; four - IOC. These 12 ICAS members appoint four more members responsible for upholding the rights of athletes. These 16 members appoint four more members from among persons independent of the organizations listed above.

Members of ICAS are appointed for a four-year term. They cannot be included in the lists of judges or mediators of the CAS. ICAS may amend the Code of Sport and Arbitration, appoint and dismiss CAS referees and mediators, be responsible for CAS funding, appoint the CAS Secretary General, etc. From among its members, ICAS elects a president and two vice presidents, presidents of both chambers of the CAS and their deputies. The ICAS meets as often as required by the activities of the CAS, but at least once a year.

The President elected by ICAS is also the President of CAS. He can chair meetings of the ICAS Board (in addition to the President, the Board includes vice-presidents and presidents of both chambers of CAS). Since 2010, this position has been held by Australian John Coates.

Structure of the CAS The CAS is composed of at least 150 judges and 50 mediators (neutral mediators who help the parties resolve a conflict) appointed by ICAS.

The CAS is composed of two chambers: the Ordinary Arbitration Chamber and the Appellate Arbitration Chamber. The Chamber of Ordinary Arbitration creates groups of arbitrators whose task is to resolve disputes in the ordinary arbitration procedure. The Chamber of Appeal Arbitration creates groups of arbitrators to consider protests against decisions of disciplinary courts or similar instances of federations, associations, other sports organizations.

News, 15:05 01.02.2018

CAS sends a signal to the IOC: experts comment on the decision of the court in Lausanne

Context

MOSCOW, Feb 1 - RAPSI, Diana Gutsul.

On Thursday, the CAS upheld 28 and partially upheld 11 of 39 complaints from Russian athletes suspended for life from the Olympics on suspicion of doping, the court said in a press release. The court considered each of the cases individually and fully satisfied the complaints of 28 athletes, recognizing the evidence collected in relation to them as insufficient. At the same time, CAS agreed with the allegations against 11 athletes, but decided to lift the life ban and limit themselves to a ban on participation in the upcoming games in Korea.

Not a single report

Lawyer Artem Patsev, who represents the interests of Russian athletes in court, believes that today's decision confirms the lack of support from independent arbitrators of the IOC approach.

“Apparently, the CAS arbitrators thereby call on the IOC to be guided by the fundamental principles of Olympism and the legal principles enshrined in the Olympic Charter when making decisions. This is such a clear and powerful signal from the highest authority that a free interpretation of the charter is unacceptable. I hope the IOC approach will change, and guys who are acquitted will receive an invitation to the games in an expedited manner and will be able to go there and perform," Patsev told RAPSI.

Lawyer Svetlana Gromadskaya recalls that when considering complaints, the court examined evidence in relation to each athlete, including the report of Grigory Rodchenkov (Director of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Anti-Doping Center" - approx. RAPSI). "Obviously, the evidence presented by the Russian side was enough to conclude that our athletes were not involved in the charges. Of course, this decision indicates a positive trend. I really hope that our athletes will still be in time for the games. The IOC's decision initially raised questions. It is good that it is not final, and there is a court that is guided by the principle of individual responsibility.Moreover, it raises the question of how, in general, the figure of Rodchenkov inspires confidence.The court is not bound only by his report and the McLaren report (Richard McLaren - approx. RAPSI), I'm sure now everyone has a chance to prove their innocence," Hromadska said.

Without guilt or punishment

Lawyer Maxim Rovinsky notes that the decision of the appellate court has nothing to do with whether there was a doping support system in Russia or not. “The court considers each case individually and the evidence on a case-by-case basis, so we see that the principle of collective responsibility in the Lausanne court did not find support, this is very important. And this suggests that all athletes who were sanctioned should try to appeal to the courts of sports jurisdiction. This is an example for our other athletes, filing appeals is not hopeless, "the expert said.

In turn, lawyer Aleksey Melnikov is convinced that the whole situation with the removal of Russian athletes from participation in competitions was clearly political in nature and, from the point of view of law, did not initially seem to be sufficiently justified.

“The arguments of sports organizations sounded extremely unconvincing from the point of view of the law. It was not about individual claims, but the collective imputation of guilt to a whole group of athletes, which is unacceptable in law, since the Latin principle “no guilt - no punishment” applies. full justification, the court considered it absolutely insufficient to simply mention someone somewhere. Sorry, but this is such a joke: “One thing is written on the fence, and there is firewood.” Evidence is specific documents, analyzes, or at least witness testimony. And is it possible in this case to consider the testimony of one fugitive and offended official, who also organized everything himself, sufficient? (Rodchenkova - approx. RAPSI) I think they are extremely insufficient. His testimony is generalizing, he speaks about "all" and "many". In the case of partial satisfaction of complaints, I think that the principle of equality was violated. It turned out that Canadian or Norwegian athletes, who were once convicted of the same violation, now, after the expiration of the term, will be able to participate in the games, and Russian athletes are deprived of this right for life? This is a discriminatory approach based on nationality, it is unacceptable. The court is for that and the court is to see if there is a situation when an athlete maliciously uses doping, or a situation where a substance is found in the tests, but the substance entered the athlete’s body by accident,” Melnikov explained.

According to the expert, the decision of the court in Lausanne is legal, and therefore it can be welcomed. "This confirms that not everyone is ready to spit on the law just to please the political situation," Melnikov concluded.

Add to blog

Publish code:

The decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne on the complaints of Russian athletes is a clear signal to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) about the inadmissibility of a free interpretation of the charter, according to experts interviewed by RAPSI.

15:05 01.02.2018

How will it look like: