The application of Swiss law in doping cases before the CAS and the Swiss Federal Tribunal
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was established in 1984 by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in order to create a supreme instance for sports disputes, away from the jurisdiction of State Courts. After a landmark decision rendered by the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) in 1993 in the widely-known Gundel case, the CAS proceeded to a series of reforms in order to become an independent arbitral institution, as confirmed by a subsequent SFT judgment. As per Article R28 of the CAS Procedural Rules of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (CAS Code), the seat of CAS arbitration is in Switzerland, notwithstanding where the hearings are held. This has the practical consequence that CAS proceedings are imperatively governed by the Swiss law of arbitration.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is also a foundation under Swiss private law and is based in Lausanne, Switzerland. In addition to WADA, the vast majority of the international federations that have adopted the WADA Code (WADC) are also domiciled in Switzerland. Under the relevant provisions of the WADC, appeals against doping disputes involving international-level athletes/ international events are brought before the CAS in Lausanne, Switzerland. WADA and other international organisations have also the right to appeal against doping-related decisions rendered by first instance bodies to the CAS without the need to exhaust internal remedies. Once the CAS award is rendered, the only way to challenge the award is before the SFT for the reasons exhaustively enumerated in the Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA).
This article aims to highlight the importance that Swiss law plays in both the procedure and the merits of doping-related cases, through concrete examples at the different stages of the anti-doping proceedings before the CAS and before the SFT. Specifically, it looks at:
- Application of Swiss law to the arbitration in doping cases (lex arbitri)
- Swiss law when determining the arbitrability of a dispute & the jurisdiction of CAS in doping-related cases
- Independence & impartiality of arbitrators in doping-related cases
- The parties’ right to be heard and the right to equal treatment
- Violation of public policy in doping-related cases
- Application of Swiss procedural law to doping-related procedures before CAS: evidence, suspension of the CAS
proceedings and provisional measures
- Application of Swiss law to the merits of a doping case
- Specific provisions of Swiss law & general principles applicable to doping cases
- Control of proportionality of a doping-related sanction and Swiss law
- Concluding Remarks`
Get access to this article and all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport
Already a member?
Articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts
This work was written for and first published on LawInSport.com (unless otherwise stated) and the copyright is owned by LawInSport Ltd. Permission is granted to make digital or hard copies of this work (or part, or abstracts, of it) for personal use provided copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage, and provided that all copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page (which should include the URL, company name (LawInSport), article title, author name, date of the publication and date of use) of any copies made. Copyright for components of this work owned by parties other than LawInSport must be honoured.
- Tags: Anti-doping | Arbitration | CAS Procedural Rules of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (CAS Code) | Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) | Dispute Resolution | International Olympic Committee (IOC) | New York Convention of 1958 | Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) | Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA) | Switzerland | WADA Code 2015 | World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)
- The challenges of enforcing FIFA's rules on overdue payables: The Iranian cases of Esteghlal FC & Traktor Sazi FC
- The Tom Arscott Case - players' duties of confidentiality & the RFU's rules on leaking "inside information"
- Should marijuana and cannabinoids still be banned for use in sports?
- “Speak Up”! WADA’s recent reforms to its whistleblowing policies, procedures and systems
Dr. Despina Mavromati, LL.M., is an attorney (Bar of Thessaloniki / Ordre des Avocats Vaudois) practicing in the field of international sports law and arbitration. She is the founder of a Lausanne-based practice (SportLegis Lausanne) and represents athletes, clubs, and sports federations in all aspects of arbitration, trials, and drafting policies.
Antonio Rigozzi is the partner in charge of the sports arbitration practice at Lévy Kaufmann-Kohler. He has extensive arbitration, litigation and dispute resolution experience across all the main areas of sports law, in a wide array of sports including football, Formula 1, sailing, athletics, ice hockey, swimming and cycling. As counsel, he represents and advises athletes, teams and sports-governing bodies before the CAS, the BAT and the Swiss courts.