As the read can easily guess, I was thinking of a title for this contribution while Wimbledon was in full swing. As to this short introduction, I was literally interrupted in the drafting by the news of the German Federal Constitutional Court (“Bundesverfassungsgerichts”)[1] upholding Claudia Pechstein’s claim that the arbitration agreement in favour of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was null and void.1 The first thought that crossed my mind was whether I should change the title from “advantage CAS” to “deuce”. Upon reflection, I opted for a typically Swiss neutral version and simply added a question mark to indicate that the sports arbitration community shall continue to reflect on the issue and be proactive to ensure that it maintains the advantage.
In this issue of Football Legal devoted to CAS arbitration, I thought that it would be a good idea to reflect on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR or the Court) in Pechstein (the Pechstein Decision) that could have jeopardised if not disrupted the CAS as we know it.[2] Expectations were high on all fronts and the Court kept us waiting for eight years. Eventually, the ECtHR considered that the CAS was independent and impartial but that Ms Pechstein’s right to be heard within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ECHR or the Convention) had been violated because she had not been granted a public hearing. Now that the dust has settled, I believe it is fair to say that the CAS dodged a bullet, which is good news for the sports arbitration community and - I would submit - for the sport in...
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.).
Register today and stay tuned to the latest legal news.
Get started