CAS Structure and Procedure – It is now Time for a Change!

This article's objective is to ensure the maintenance of the CAS system and to inspire further thought and analysis on the matter. Firstly, it describes recent judicature jeopardizing the CAS as a dispute resolution mechanism for sports disputes. Additionally, it analyzes the appointment mechanism of ICAS members and CAS list arbitrators. The article asserts that ICAS members and CAS arbitrators are biased from a psychological perspective. It furthermore provides proposals to enhance the CAS system, in improving the participants' independence, and in strengthening its transparency. The article closes with a discussion of proposed amendments.

Introduction

The legal and sports community eagerly awaits the decision regarding the revision by the German Supreme Court of Claudia Pechstein's case. On 8 March 2016, the BGH announced that it was postponing its decision to 7 June 2016. Furthermore, on 24 March 2016, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rendered its decision in the Tabbane v. Switzerland[1] case. The decision examines the legitimacy of a party's right to waive the right to recourse in arbitration.

Independently of the BGH decision, the Pechstein matter raises independence[2] questions regarding the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The aim of the present article is not to call for a divestiture of the CAS, but rather to...

Why not join us?

Football Legal is an independent media publishing football law contents on a daily basis dedicated to all football law practitioners (lawyers, clubs, federations, intermediaries, football stakeholders, etc.).

Get started