Advanced

Är CAS kass? - Uppfyller idrottsskiljedomstolen Europakonventionens garantier om rätten till en rättvis rättegång?

Tolander, Jenny LU (2020) JURM02 20201
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was established in the 1980s following an increased demand for an arbitration tribunal to handle all sports-related disputes. The Court of Arbitration for Sport was introduced and has since its inception delivered a large number of decisions within the world of sports.

The subject of the paper is to describe how CAS operates as an institution and analyze whether the process before the arbitration court meets the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Selected criteria in Article 6 (1) ECHR have been discussed and analyzed in order to establish to what extent CAS actually meets the requirements.

Article 6 (1) ECHR grants a right to judicial proceedings, including... (More)
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was established in the 1980s following an increased demand for an arbitration tribunal to handle all sports-related disputes. The Court of Arbitration for Sport was introduced and has since its inception delivered a large number of decisions within the world of sports.

The subject of the paper is to describe how CAS operates as an institution and analyze whether the process before the arbitration court meets the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Selected criteria in Article 6 (1) ECHR have been discussed and analyzed in order to establish to what extent CAS actually meets the requirements.

Article 6 (1) ECHR grants a right to judicial proceedings, including guarantees to protect the right to a fair trial. CAS operates as an arbitration court under Swiss law and must uphold the requirements set by ECHR. Article 6 (1) ECHR entitles everyone to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

During the years as an active arbitration court, CAS has been subject to some criticism. The criticism has mainly been focused on whether the process in CAS meets the requirements set for a fair trial in Article 6 (1) ECHR. A fair amount of CAS decisions have been challenged on procedural grounds to the Swiss federal tribunal (SFT) and a couple have reached all the way to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

The essay concludes that CAS to some extent has procedural deficiencies in relation to Article 6 (1) ECHR. The examination more importantly gives evidence for how every time either SFT or ECtHR has directed criticism of the arbitral tribunal, CAS has been responsive and changed its rules. This indicates a willingness and flexibility to coordinate the process in order to maintain, as far as possible, the European Convention on Human Right’s guarantees to protect a fair trial. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Idrottens skiljedomstol inrättades på 1980-talet efter en ökad efterfrågan på ett domstolsorgan som kunde döma i samtliga idrottsrelaterade tvister. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) blev produkten och har sedan dess begynnelse dömt i ett stort antal tvister inom idrottsvärlden.

Den här uppsatsen syftar till att redogöra för hur CAS verksamhet fungerar samt utreda huruvida processen inför skiljedomstolen uppfyller de i Europa-konventionen ställda garantierna. Utvalda kriterier i artikel 6 (1) EKMR har diskuterats och analyserats för att utröna i vilken mån CAS faktiskt tillgodoser kraven.

Europakonventionens artikel 6 (1) innehåller grundläggande rättssäkerhetsgarantier för att skydda rätten till en rättvis rättegång. CAS... (More)
Idrottens skiljedomstol inrättades på 1980-talet efter en ökad efterfrågan på ett domstolsorgan som kunde döma i samtliga idrottsrelaterade tvister. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) blev produkten och har sedan dess begynnelse dömt i ett stort antal tvister inom idrottsvärlden.

Den här uppsatsen syftar till att redogöra för hur CAS verksamhet fungerar samt utreda huruvida processen inför skiljedomstolen uppfyller de i Europa-konventionen ställda garantierna. Utvalda kriterier i artikel 6 (1) EKMR har diskuterats och analyserats för att utröna i vilken mån CAS faktiskt tillgodoser kraven.

Europakonventionens artikel 6 (1) innehåller grundläggande rättssäkerhetsgarantier för att skydda rätten till en rättvis rättegång. CAS lyder som domstolsorgan under schweizisk lag och ska även upprätthålla de krav som EKMR ställer. Inom ramen för artikel 6 (1) EKMR föreligger en rätt för var och en att få tillgång till en rättvis och offentlig rättegång inför en oavhängig och opartisk domstol som upprättats enligt lag.

Under åren som verksam skiljedomstol har CAS varit föremål för viss kritik. Kritiken har främst tagit sikte på huruvida processen i CAS uppfyller de krav som ställs i artikel 6 (1) EKMR. Flera av CAS skiljedomar har klandrats till schweizisk domstol, SFT, och ett par har nått hela vägen upp till Europa-domstolen.

Föreliggande arbete visar på flertalet genom åren processuella brister hos CAS. Utredningen visar även hur CAS varje gång en högre instans har riktat kritik mot skiljedomstolen varit lyhörd och ändrat sitt regelverk. Detta tyder på en vilja och flexibilitet att samordna processen för att i största möjliga mån upprätthålla Europakonventionens rättssäkerhetsgarantier. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Tolander, Jenny LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Does CAS comply with the requirements to protect a fair trial set by the ECHR?
course
JURM02 20201
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
processrätt, idrottsjuridik, sports law, CAS, Europakonventionen, EKMR, ECHR, arbitration law, skiljemannarätt
language
Swedish
id
9010320
date added to LUP
2020-06-15 09:25:14
date last changed
2020-06-15 09:25:14
@misc{9010320,
  abstract     = {The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was established in the 1980s following an increased demand for an arbitration tribunal to handle all sports-related disputes. The Court of Arbitration for Sport was introduced and has since its inception delivered a large number of decisions within the world of sports.

The subject of the paper is to describe how CAS operates as an institution and analyze whether the process before the arbitration court meets the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Selected criteria in Article 6 (1) ECHR have been discussed and analyzed in order to establish to what extent CAS actually meets the requirements.

Article 6 (1) ECHR grants a right to judicial proceedings, including guarantees to protect the right to a fair trial. CAS operates as an arbitration court under Swiss law and must uphold the requirements set by ECHR. Article 6 (1) ECHR entitles everyone to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

During the years as an active arbitration court, CAS has been subject to some criticism. The criticism has mainly been focused on whether the process in CAS meets the requirements set for a fair trial in Article 6 (1) ECHR. A fair amount of CAS decisions have been challenged on procedural grounds to the Swiss federal tribunal (SFT) and a couple have reached all the way to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

The essay concludes that CAS to some extent has procedural deficiencies in relation to Article 6 (1) ECHR. The examination more importantly gives evidence for how every time either SFT or ECtHR has directed criticism of the arbitral tribunal, CAS has been responsive and changed its rules. This indicates a willingness and flexibility to coordinate the process in order to maintain, as far as possible, the European Convention on Human Right’s guarantees to protect a fair trial.},
  author       = {Tolander, Jenny},
  keyword      = {processrätt,idrottsjuridik,sports law,CAS,Europakonventionen,EKMR,ECHR,arbitration law,skiljemannarätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Är CAS kass? - Uppfyller idrottsskiljedomstolen Europakonventionens garantier om rätten till en rättvis rättegång?},
  year         = {2020},
}