Abstract
AbstractThe combined Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has been long-awaited in order to assess whether and how the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) guarantees procedural safeguards pursuant to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The judgment of the ECtHR is certainly a landmark decision providing clarity for some aspects relevant under Article 6 ECHR. The Court held that the acceptance of CAS jurisdiction in disciplinary proceedings is to be regarded as “compulsory” arbitration. Consequently, the CAS appeal arbitration proceedings have to afford the safeguards secured by Article 6(1) ECHR, in particular the right to a public hearing. However, not only the two applicants in this case but presumably also the majority of the international sports law community were left disappointed by the superficial analysis conducted by the ECtHR with respect to the composition and structure of the CAS. In particular, questions regarding the independence and impartiality of the CAS remain unanswered and will be subject to further discussion, encouraged by the powerful dissenting opinion of two of the seven ECtHR judges.KeywordsPechsteinMutuECtHRArticle 6 ECHRCASCourt of Arbitration for SportCompulsory arbitrationSports arbitrationPublic hearingIndependence and impartiality
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call