Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Enforcement of CAS Arbitral Awards by National Courts and the Effective Protection of EU Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Fundamental Rights in International and European Law

Abstract

This chapter is the first comprehensive analysis regarding a national court’s duty to ensure the effective protection of EU (competition) law during the enforcement proceedings of foreign arbitral awards rendered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). There is a general lack of case law concerning the private law enforcement of EU (competition) law with regard to CAS awards. On the one hand, sports governing bodies contractually oblige their members to have recourse to CAS arbitration, which limits their members’ right of access to court. On the other hand, a sports governing body may threaten disciplinary sanctions if the member involved were to refuse to implement the CAS (appeal) award. This chapter criticizes the deliberate attempt to circumvent the enforcement proceedings of CAS awards by national courts. It also argues that such an evasion puts the duty of a national court to ensure the effective protection of EU (competition) law on the line.

Researcher and PhD candidate in International and European sports law at the Asser Institute. I wish to thank Prof.dr. Stefaan Van den Bogaert (PhD supervisor), Prof.dr. Ben Van Rompuy, and Antoine Duval for their valuable and much appreciated comments and suggestions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The main pillars are private ownership, freedom of contract and testamentary freedom. Cherednychenko 2007, p. 26.

  2. 2.

    The main governance model of sports governing bodies is the association model. Boillat and Poli 2014.

  3. 3.

    The essential difference between a ‘common’ contract and a ‘membership’ contract is that members have a say in the matters of the sport’s governing body concerned (e.g. the right to vote at its general assembly).

  4. 4.

    Steingruber 2012, pp. 12–14.

  5. 5.

    Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. See e.g. Joined Cases C-215/96 and C-216/96 Bagnasco and Others [1999] ECR I-135, paras 45–46; Case C-240/97 Spain v. Commission [1999] ECR I-6571, para 99 (principle of contractual freedom); Case 151/78 Sukkerfabriken Nykøbing Limiteret v. Ministry of Agriculture [1979] ECR 1, para 20 (freedom to contract).

  6. 6.

    Steingruber 2012, p. 12.

  7. 7.

    E.g. Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

  8. 8.

    It should also be taken into account that in jurisdictions like the United States, CAS arbitration is provided for by law (Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act in conjunction with s 220509(a) of the United States Code), which means that CAS arbitration is de facto mandatory arbitration. Steingruber 2012, p. 24.

  9. 9.

    Steingruber 2012, pp. 22–23.

  10. 10.

    Ibid., p. 23.

  11. 11.

    FIFA Statutes July 2013 edition, Article 67(2-3). www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/02/14/97/88/fifastatuten2013_e_neutral.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  12. 12.

    FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/01/95/83/85/regulationsstatusandtransfer_e.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  13. 13.

    European Commission, Commission closes investigations into FIFA regulations on international football transfers, Press release IP/02/824 of 5 June 2002. See also European Commission, The EU and sport: background and context; Accompanying document to the White Paper on Sport, SEC(2007) 935, p. 74.

  14. 14.

    FIFA Disciplinary Code 2011 edition.

  15. 15.

    Emphasis added.

  16. 16.

    Article 25(6) of the ISU Constitution. www.isu.org/en/about-isu/disciplinary-and-legal. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  17. 17.

    What is the Court of Arbitration for Sport? http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Statistics_2013.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2015.

  18. 18.

    Judgement of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4A_558/2011, of 27 March 2012. www.swissarbitrationdecisions.com/sites/default/files/27%20mars%202012%204A%20558%202011.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  19. 19.

    If a country has not ratified the New York Convention, the legal procedure of exequatur (a full review of the case) of an arbitral award must be complied with. Wild 2012, p. 9, note 20.

  20. 20.

    Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958) (the ‘New York Convention’).

  21. 21.

    See e.g. Case C-415/95, ASBL, Royal club liégeois SA, UEFA v. Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921; Case C-519/04 P, Meca-Medina and Majcen v. Commission [2006] ECR I-6991; Case C-49/07, Motosykletistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (MOTOE) v. Elliniko Dimosio [2008] ECR I -4863.

  22. 22.

    See e.g. CAS 2011/O/2574, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v. FC Sion/Olympique des Alpes SA, award of 31 January 2012. The ban from UEFA competitions was confirmed in Decision Swiss Federal Tribunal, 4A_134/2012 of 16 July 2012, ASA Bull. 3/2014, p. 550.

  23. 23.

    CAS 2009/A/1810 & 1811, SV Wilhelmshaven v. Club Atlético Excursionistas & Club Atlético River Plate, award of 5 October 2009.

  24. 24.

    Vaitiekunas 2014, p. 242. Vieweg and Staschik 2015, p. 55.

  25. 25.

    Ibid.

  26. 26.

    Decision Swiss Federal Tribunal, Case 4A_490/2009, ATF 136 III 345.

  27. 27.

    Decision Swiss Federal Tribunal, Case 4A_558/2011, BGE 138 III 322.

  28. 28.

    Case C-126/97, Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton International NV [1999] ECR I-3055. Competition law being a matter of public policy was already accepted in Case C-393/92, Gemeente Almelo v. NV Energiebedrijf Ijsselmij [1994] ECR I-1477, para 23. See Biagioni 2015, pp. 287–288; Komninos 2011, pp. 195–196.

  29. 29.

    Article 47(1) EU Charter guarantees the right to an effective remedy before a court reaffirming the general principle of effective judicial protection recognized by the CJ. Case 222/84, Johnston v. Chief Constable of the RUC 1986 [ECR] 1651, paras 18–19. Case 222/86, Unectef v. Heylens and others [ECR] 1987 4097, para 14. Case C-97/91, Borelli SpA v. Commission [ECR] 1992 I-6313, para 14. Joined Cases C-317/08, C-318/08, C-319/08 and C-320/08, Alassini et al. v. Telecom Italia SpA [ECR] 2010 I-2213, para 61. See also Article 19 TEU (‘[m]ember states shall provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law’).

  30. 30.

    Case C-126/97, Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton International NV [1999] ECR I-3055, para 36.

  31. 31.

    E.g., Germany: Book 10 ZPO (Code of Civil Procedure)—Arbitration proceedings.

  32. 32.

    Radicati di Brozolo 2011, paras 22-001–22-002.

  33. 33.

    Bühler and Cartier 2013, p. 318; Otto and Elwan 2010, p. 347.

  34. 34.

    Otto and Elwan 2010, p. 347.

  35. 35.

    Redfern et al. 2009, paras 11.20–11.24.

  36. 36.

    Ibid.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., para 11.20.

  38. 38.

    E.g. the Netherlands: Article 1063(1) Wetboek van burgelijke rechtsvordering (Rv) or Switzerland: Article 194 PILA.

  39. 39.

    For instance, the impartiality and independence of arbitral tribunals is a matter of German public policy.

  40. 40.

    Komninos 2011, pp. 214–218; Brulard and Quintin 2001, pp. 545–546.

  41. 41.

    If a country has not ratified the New York Convention, the legal procedure of exequatur (a full review of the case) of an arbitral award must be complied with. Wild 2012, p. 9, note 20.

  42. 42.

    Van den Berg 2014, p. 269; Komninos 2011, p. 191. Alfons 2010.

  43. 43.

    Decision Swiss Federal Tribunal, Case 4A_558/2011, BGE 138 III 322.

  44. 44.

    See e.g. Cour de cassation, 23 March 1994, Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, Vol XX (1995), p. 663.

  45. 45.

    See e.g. Amsterdam Court of Appeal, Case No. 200.005.269/01, April 28, 2009; Amsterdam Court of Appeal, Case No. 200.100.508/01, 18 September 2012.

  46. 46.

    ICC Guide to national procedures for the recognition and enforcement of awards under the New York Convention, ICC Court of Arbitration Bulletin (Vol. 23, Special Supplement) 2012, p. 20.

  47. 47.

    Decision Swiss Federal Tribunal, Case 4A_490/2009, ATF 136 III 345.

  48. 48.

    Alfons 2010.

  49. 49.

    Vaitiekunas 2014, p. 242; Vieweg and Staschik 2015, p. 55.

  50. 50.

    Emphasis added.

  51. 51.

    Mavromati and Reeb 2015, pp. 367–368.

  52. 52.

    Ibid., note 51.

  53. 53.

    De Groot 2011, para 16-034; Von Mehren 2003, p. 465; Von Quitzow 2000, p. 34; Lew 2003, para 9-36; Redfern and Hunter 2004, para 3-18; Craig 2000, pp. 342–344.

  54. 54.

    De Groot 2011, para 16-034; Blanke 2009, pp. 23–27; Blanke and Nazzini 2008, pp. 49–51; Hilbig 2006, pp. 86–99; Landolt 2006, pp. 89–104; Redfern et al. 2009, para 2.124.

  55. 55.

    Stylopoulos 2009, p. 119.

  56. 56.

    Biagioni 2015, p. 284.

  57. 57.

    Blanke 2013, para 29.20.

  58. 58.

    Maurer 2013, p. 61.

  59. 59.

    Biagioni 2015, pp. 284–286, 291.

  60. 60.

    Case C-168/05, Mostaza Claro v. Centro Móvil Milenium SL [2006] ECR I-10421.

  61. 61.

    Case C-40/08, Asturcom Telecomunicaciones SL v. Rodríguez Nogueira [2009] ECR I-9579.

  62. 62.

    Kröll 2015, p. 485.

  63. 63.

    Decision Swiss Federal Tribunal, 4P.278/2005 of 8 March 2006. Landolt 2011, p. 545; Landolt 2008.

  64. 64.

    Weatherill 2014, p. 101.

  65. 65.

    Austrian Supreme Court’s (ASC) legal formula RS0109633 with reference to the ASC decision of 22 February 2007, 3Ob233/06w. Steiner 2012, p. 41, note 142.

  66. 66.

    Although the European Union (EU) itself is not a party to the New York Convention, it should be noted that all Member States are. UNCITRAL, Status Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958). www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  67. 67.

    Biagioni 2015, pp. 282–283.

  68. 68.

    Ibid., p. 289.

  69. 69.

    Case 102/81, Nordsee Deutsche Hochseefischerei GmbH v. Reederei Mond Hochseefischerei Nordstern AG & Co. KG and Reederei Friedrich Busse Hochseefischerei Nordstern AG & Co. KG [1982] ECR 1095, para 14.

  70. 70.

    Biagioni 2015, pp. 289–290.

  71. 71.

    Decision of the Paris Court of Appeal of 18 Novernber 2004 in Thalès v. Euromissile; Judgement of the Paris Court of Appeal of 23 March 2006 in SNF SAS c/Cytec Industries, as recently affirmed by the French Supreme Court in Arrêt no 680, Cour de Cassation, 4 June 2008. See Blanke 2013, paras 29.86–29.87, note 172.

  72. 72.

    Germany: Bundesgerichtshof, Judgement of 25 October 1966, Bghz 46, 365; OLG Düsseldorf, Judgement of 15 July 2002, Az I-6 Sch 5/02; OLG Dresden, Judgement of 20 April 2005. The Netherlands: Sesam v. Betoncentrale, Hof Amsterdam 12 October 2000, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie (NJ) 2002, Case No. 111; Marketing Displays International Inc v. VR Van Raalte Reclame BV, Judgement of the The Hague Appeal Court of 24 March 2005. Blanke 2013, paras 29.86–29.87, note 171.

  73. 73.

    Case 102/81, Nordsee v. Reederei mond [1982] ECR 1095, para 14; Case C-126/97, Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton International NV [1999] ECR I-3055, para 32.

  74. 74.

    Case 102/81, Nordsee Deutsche Hochseefischerei GmbH v. Reederei Mond Hochseefischerei Nordstern AG & Co. KG and Reederei Friedrich Busse Hochseefischerei Nordstern AG & Co. KG [1982] ECR, 1095.

  75. 75.

    De Groot 2011, para 16-039.

  76. 76.

    Case C-102/81, Nordsee v. Reederei Mond [1982] ECR 1095, paras 13–14.

  77. 77.

    Case C-555/13, Merck Canada Inc. v. Accord Healthcare Ltd, Alter SA, Labochem Ltd, Synthon BV, Ranbaxy Portugal—Comércio e Desenvolvimento de Produtos Farmacêuticos, Unipessoal Lda, nyr.

  78. 78.

    Case C-126/97, Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton International NV [1999] ECR I-3055, para 35.

  79. 79.

    Brulard and Quintin 2001, p. 543.

  80. 80.

    Ibid.

  81. 81.

    Case 33/76, Rewe v. Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland [1976] ECR 1989, para 5; Case 6/90, Francovich v. Italy [1991] ECR I-5357, para 43; Case 231/96, Edilizia Industriale Siderurgica v. Ministero delle Fincanze [1998] ECR I-4951, paras 19 and 34; Case C-234/04, Kapferer v. Schlank and Schick GmbH [2006] ECR I-2585, para 21. Brulard and Quintin 2001, p. 544.

  82. 82.

    Case 267/86, Van Eycke v. ASPA [1988] ECR 4769, para 16.

  83. 83.

    Case 33/76, Rewe v. Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland [1976] ECR 1989, para 5; Case 45/76, Comet BV v. Produktschap voor Siergewassen [1976] ECR 2043, para 13. Bermann 2012, p. 415.

  84. 84.

    Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04, Vincenzo Manfredi et al. v. Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni et al. [2006] ECR I-6619, para 31.

  85. 85.

    Case 33/76, Rewe v. Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland [1976] ECR 1989, para 5; Case 45/76, Comet BV v. Produktschap voor Siergewassen [1976] ECR 2043, para 13. Komninos 2011, p. 218. Van der Haegen 2009, pp. 449, 474–475.

  86. 86.

    Although indirectly effective EU law provisions (i.e., Directives) are also mandatory rules of EU law, they will not be discussed here. See Case C-429/05, Rampion and Godard v. Franfinance SA and K par K SAS [2007] ECR I-8017, para 58 (‘public policy rules designed to protect specific interests […], adopted in the interest of a particular category of persons and which may be relied upon only by persons belonging to that category’).

  87. 87.

    Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93, Van Schijndel and Van Veen v. Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten [1995] ECR I-4705. Case C-40/08, Asturcom Telecomunicaciones SL v. Rodríguez Nogueira [2009] ECR I-9579, para 17.

  88. 88.

    Ibid.

  89. 89.

    Komninos 2011, pp. 194–195.

  90. 90.

    Case T-128/98, Aeroports de Paris v. Commission [2000] ECR II-3929, para 241; Case T-34/92, Fiatragi and New Holland Ford v. Commission [1994] ECR II-905, para 39; Case C-126/97, Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton International NV [1999] ECR I-3055, paras 36 and 39; Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04, Vicenzo Manfredi and others v. Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA and others [2006] ECR I-6619, para 31. Komninos 2011, pp. 194–195.

  91. 91.

    Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93, Van Schijndel and van Veen v Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten [1995] ECR I-04705.

  92. 92.

    Ibid., Case C-40/08, Asturcom Telecomunicaciones SL v. Rodríguez Nogueira [2009] ECR I-9579, para 13. Hartkamp 2012, paras 119, 124, 130.

  93. 93.

    Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93, Van Schijndel and Van Veen v. Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten [1995] ECR I-4705. Snijders 2014, pp. 96, 99.

  94. 94.

    Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93, Van Schijndel and Van Veen v. Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten [1995] ECR I-4705. Hartkamp 2012, para 124.

  95. 95.

    Hartkamp 2012, para 124.

  96. 96.

    Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93 van Schijndel and van Veen v. Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten [1995] ECR I-04705, para 21. Hartkamp 2014, Chap. 25.

  97. 97.

    Hartkamp 2012, para 124.

  98. 98.

    Ancery 2012, p. 173.

  99. 99.

    National courts have the competence to apply Articles 101–102 TFEU under Article 6 Council Regulation No. 1/2003.

  100. 100.

    Ancery 2012, pp. 168–171.

  101. 101.

    Case C-8/08, T-Mobile Netherlands BV, KPN Mobile NV, Orange Nederland NV, Vodafone Libertel NV v. Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit [2009] ECR I-4529, para 49. Emphasis added.

  102. 102.

    Case C-126/97, Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton International NV [1999] ECR I-3055, para 39.

  103. 103.

    Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04, Vincenzo Manfredi et al. v. Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni et al. [2006] ECR I-6619, para 31 (emphasis added).

  104. 104.

    De Groot 2011, paras 16-001, 16-074–16-079.

  105. 105.

    Hartkamp 2012, para 127.

  106. 106.

    Case C-168/05, Mostaza Claro v. Centro Móvil Milenium SL [2006] ECR I-10421.

  107. 107.

    Case C-40/08, Asturcom Telecomunicaciones SL v. Rodríguez Nogueira [2009] ECR I-9579.

  108. 108.

    Ancery 2012, pp. 180–182.

  109. 109.

    Above, Sect 12.2.5.

  110. 110.

    Komninos 2011, p. 221.

  111. 111.

    Biagioni 2015, p. 294.

  112. 112.

    Above, Sect. 12.2.5.

  113. 113.

    Biagioni 2015, p. 294.

  114. 114.

    Ancery 2012, p. 170.

  115. 115.

    What is the Court of Arbitration for Sport? http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Statistics_2013.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2015.

  116. 116.

    CAS 98/200, AEK Athens and SK Slavia Prague v. UEFA, award of 20 August 1999. Cherpillod and De Dios Crespo Pérez 2012.

  117. 117.

    CAS 2008/A/1644, Mutu v. Chelsea, 31 July 2009.

  118. 118.

    CAS 2009/A/1788, UMMC Ekaterinburg v. FIBA Europe e.V., 29 October 2009.

  119. 119.

    Duval 2015, pp. 242–245.

  120. 120.

    CAS 2008/A/1644, Mutu v. Chelsea, 31 July 2009.

  121. 121.

    Duval 2015, pp. 238–242.

  122. 122.

    Van Rompuy 2015, p. 203.

  123. 123.

    Komninos 2011, pp. 192–193.

  124. 124.

    Ibid., Idot 2000, p. 591; Blessing 2003; Blanke 2006, 2007, p. 673, 2011; Blanke and Sabahi 2008, p. 211; Heukamp 2006.

  125. 125.

    Komninos 2011, pp. 192–193; Blanke 2013.

  126. 126.

    Blanke 2015.

  127. 127.

    Above, Sect. 12.1.

  128. 128.

    Above, Sect. 12.1. Although recourse to court proceedings may be excluded, a sports governing body will not disciplinarily sanction it when it involves CAS ordinary arbitration.

  129. 129.

    As far as non-EU jurisdictions (excluding Switzerland) are concerned, only the following case has been found until now: Brazil: No. 17, Union Europeénne de Gymnastique (UEG) v. Multipole Distribuidora de Filmes Ltda, Superior Court of Justice of Brazil, SEC No. 874-EX (2005/0034908-7), 19 April 2006. Van den Berg 2012, pp. 173–174.

  130. 130.

    Thessaloniki First Instance Court No. 7528/2013, Civil Procedure Review 2014, pp. 109 et seq. Anthimos 2014.

  131. 131.

    According to Article 867 b of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, labour law disputes are excluded from arbitration in order to protect the ‘weaker party’. It was however the player himself who embedded the arbitral clause—not the club. The Greek Court therefore did not mention nor assess the aforesaid legal article.

  132. 132.

    Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Catalunya, 30 May 2012 (IMFC Licensing, B.V. v. R.C.D. Espanyol de Barcelona, S.A.D.) Yearbook XXXVIII (2013) pp. 462–464.

  133. 133.

    Espanyol is a member of the Royal Spanish Football Federation, which is one of UEFA’s national football associations—UEFA is one of the six continental federations of FIFA.

  134. 134.

    CAS statistics 1989–2013, p. 2. www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Statistics_2013.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  135. 135.

    Primary EU law is part of German public policy. Bundesregierung, Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedsverfahrensrechts (Schiedsverfahren-Neuregelungsgesetz—SchiedsVfG), BT-DRs. 13/5274 vom 12. Juli 1996, 59; BverfG, Nichtannahmebeschluss vom 18. Oktober 2006, AZ: BvR 2505/06; BayObLG, Besch. V. 25. August 2004, SchiedsVZ 2004, 319 ff., 320; OLG Dresden, Beschl. V. 20. April 2005, SchiedsVZ 2005, 210 ff., 213; OLG Frankfurt, Beschl. 24. November 2005, SchiedsVZ 2006, 220 et seq., 223; OLG Karlsruher, Beschl. V. 2. Oktober 2001, OLGR 2002, 94 et seq., 95; Meier 2015, p. 68; Kröll 2015, p. 488.

  136. 136.

    B. Van Rompuy, Faster, higher, stronger—EU competition law, Lexis PSL 19 May 2015.

  137. 137.

    Primary EU law is part of German public policy. Bundesregierung, Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedsverfahrensrechts (Schiedsverfahren-Neuregelungsgesetz—SchiedsVfG), BT-DRs. 13/5274 vom 12. Juli 1996, 59; BverfG, Nichtannahmebeschluss vom 18. Oktober 2006, AZ: BvR 2505/06; BayObLG, Besch. V. 25. August 2004, SchiedsVZ 2004, 319 ff., 320; OLG Dresden, Beschl. V. 20. April 2005, SchiedsVZ 2005, 210 et seq., 213; OLG Frankfurt, Beschl. 24. November 2005, SchiedsVZ 2006, 220 et seq., 223; OLG Karlsruher, Beschl. V. 2. Oktober 2001, OLGR 2002, 94 et seq., 95. Meier 2015, p. 68.

  138. 138.

    See CAS 2009/A/1912, Pechstein v. ISU.

  139. 139.

    Decision Swiss Federal Tribunal, 4A_612/2009.

  140. 140.

    Decision Swiss Federal Tribunal, 4A_612/2009, para 4.1 refers to Decision Swiss Federal Tribunal, 4P.105/2006, para 7.3 and Decision Swiss Federal Tribunal, 4P.64/2001, para 2d/aa.

  141. 141.

    Decision Swiss Federal Tribunal 4A_612/2009, paras 6.1–6.3.1 refers to, inter alia, Decision Swiss Federal Tribunal, BGE 132 III 389 at 2.2.1. Geisinger and Mazuranic 2013, pp. 249–250. Duve and Troshchenovych 2015; Sherer 2010, para 10.

  142. 142.

    Decision Swiss Federal Tribunal, 4A_144/2010. Stirnimann 2013. Von Segesser and Schramm 2010, pp. 73–79, para 5; Born 2014, para 24.07.

  143. 143.

    ECHR Case No. 67474/10. Duve and Troshchenovych 2015, p. 4.

  144. 144.

    Landesgericht München, 26 February 2014, Az. 37 O 28331/12.

  145. 145.

    Handschin and Schütz 2014; Muresan 2014.

  146. 146.

    Oberlandesgericht München, 15 January 2015, Az. U 1110/14 Kart.

  147. 147.

    Steingruber 2012, p. 23.

  148. 148.

    Article 19 GWB—Abuse of a Dominant Position. (1) The abusive exploitation of a dominant position by one or several undertakings is prohibited. […] (4) An abuse exists in particular if a dominant undertaking as a supplier or purchaser of certain kinds of goods or commercial services: […] 2. demands payment or other business terms which differ from those which would very likely arise if effective competition existed; in this context, particularly the conduct of undertakings in comparable markets where effective competition prevails shall be taken into account; […]’. Source: Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, Translated statutes and ordinances. www.gesetze-im-internet.de/Teilliste_translations.html. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  149. 149.

    Primary EU law is part of German public policy. Bundesregierung , Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedsverfahrensrechts (Schiedsverfahren-Neuregelungsgesetz—SchiedsVfG), BT-DRs. 13/5274 vom 12. Juli 1996, 59; BverfG, Nichtannahmebeschluss vom 18. Oktober 2006, AZ: BvR 2505/06; BayObLG, Besch. V. 25. August 2004, SchiedsVZ 2004, 319 ff., 320; OLG Dresden, Beschl. V. 20. April 2005, SchiedsVZ 2005, 210 et seq., 213; OLG Frankfurt, Beschl. 24. November 2005, SchiedsVZ 2006, 220 et seq., 223; OLG Karlsruher, Beschl. V. 2. Oktober 2001, OLGR 2002, 94 et seq., 95. Meier 2015, p. 68.

  150. 150.

    CAS 2009/A/1810 & 1811, SV Wilhelmshaven v. Club Atlético Excursionistas & Club Atlético River Plate, award of 5 October 2009.

  151. 151.

    Landesgericht Bremen, 25 April 2014, 12 O 129/1.

  152. 152.

    Oberlandesgericht Bremen, 30 December 2014, 2 U 67/14, p. 25.

  153. 153.

    Above, Sect. 12.2.5.

  154. 154.

    Meier 2015, pp. 66–67.

  155. 155.

    Vieweg and Staschik 2015, p. 43. Further notes omitted.

  156. 156.

    Meier 2015, p. 66.

  157. 157.

    C-415/95, ASBL, Royal club liégeois SA, UEFA v. Bosman [1995] ECR I-04921.

  158. 158.

    C-350/96, Clean Car Autoserice Gmbh v. Landeshauptmann von Wein [1998] ECR I-2521, para 19.

  159. 159.

    Bundesgesetzblatt—‘BGBl’ 1961, Part II, p. 121.

  160. 160.

    Kröll 2015, p. 455. Notes omitted.

  161. 161.

    Kröll 2015, pp. 444–446. Notes omitted.

  162. 162.

    Kröll 2015, pp. 422–423. Notes omitted.

  163. 163.

    Kröll 2015, pp. 444, 455. Notes omitted.

  164. 164.

    Landesgericht Bremen, 25 April 2014, 12 O 129/1.

  165. 165.

    Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93, Van Schijndel and Van Veen v. Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten [1995] ECR I-4705, para 21. Hartkamp 2014.

  166. 166.

    Kröll 2015, pp. 484–485. Notes omitted.

  167. 167.

    Hartkamp 2014.

  168. 168.

    Ancery 2012, p. 173.

  169. 169.

    Kröll 2015, pp. 486, 488. Notes omitted.

  170. 170.

    Primary EU law is part of German public policy. Bundesregierung , Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedsverfahrensrechts (Schiedsverfahren-Neuregelungsgesetz—SchiedsVfG), BT-DRs. 13/5274 vom 12. Juli 1996, 59; BverfG, Nichtannahmebeschluss vom 18. Oktober 2006, AZ: BvR 2505/06; BayObLG, Besch. V. 25. August 2004, SchiedsVZ 2004, 319 et seq., 320; OLG Dresden, Beschl. V. 20. April 2005, SchiedsVZ 2005, 210 et seq., 213; OLG Frankfurt, Beschl. 24. November 2005, SchiedsVZ 2006, 220 et seq., 223; OLG Karlsruher, Beschl. V. 2. Oktober 2001, OLGR 2002, 94 et seq., 95. Meier 2015, p. 68.

  171. 171.

    Bundesgerichtshof, 29 March 1996, BGHZ 132, 278.

  172. 172.

    Kröll 2015, pp. 490–493. Notes omitted.

  173. 173.

    European Commission, Xth Report on competition policy—1980, Brussels/Luxembourg 1981, para 126, No. 87–88. Komninos 2008, p. 130, note 620.

  174. 174.

    Cseres and Mendes 2014, pp. 518–519; Van Rompuy 2015.

References

  • Alfons C (2010) Recognition and enforcement of annulled foreign arbitral awards—an analysis of the legal framework and its interpretation in case law and literature. Peter Lang Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Ancery A (2012) Ambtshalve toepassing van EU-recht. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Anthimos A (2014) Recognition and enforcement of a CAS decision in Greece. E-Lex Sportiva J 2:118–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Bermann G (2012) Navigating EU law and the law of international arbitration. Arbitr Int 28:397–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biagioni G (2015) Review by national courts of arbitral awards dealing with EU competition law. In: Marquis M, Cisotta R (eds) Litigation and arbitration in EU competition law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 281–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanke G (2006) The use and utility of international arbitration in EC Commission merger remedies, a novel supranational paradigm in the making?. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanke G (2007) The use of arbitration in EC merger control: latest developments. Eur Competit Law Rev 28:673–694

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanke G (2009) EC Competition law claims in international arbitration. In: Klausegger K et al (eds) Austrian arbitration Yearbook. C.H. Beck, Vienna, pp 1–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanke G (2011) International arbitration and ADR in conditional EU merger clearance decisions. In: Blanke G, Landolt Ph (eds) EU and US antitrust arbitration: a handbook for practitioners. Kluwer, Deventer, pp 1605–1724

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanke G (2013) EU competition arbitration. In: Ortiz Blanco L (ed) EU competition procedure, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1075–1112

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanke G (2015) The interaction between arbitration and public enforcement: clash or harmony. In: Marquis M, Cisotta R (eds) Litigation and arbitration in EU competition law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 261–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanke G, Nazzini R (2008) Arbitration and ADR of global competition disputes: taking stock (Part I). Glob Competit Litigat Rev 1:49–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanke G, Sabahi B (2008) The new world of unilateral offers to arbitrate: investment arbitration and EC merger control arbitration. J Chartered Inst Arbitr 74:211–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Blessing M (2003) Arbitrating antitrust and merger control issues. Helbing & Lichtenhabn, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Boillat C, Poli R (2014) Governance models across football associations and leagues. Centre International d’Etude du Sport, Neuchâtel

    Google Scholar 

  • Born G (2014) International commercial arbitration, 2nd edn. Kluwer International Law, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Brulard Y, Quintin Y (2001) European community law and arbitration—national versus community public policy. J Int Arbitr 18:533–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bühler M, Cartier M (2013) Section XII: foreign arbitral awards—article 194. In: Arroyo M (ed) Arbitration in Switzerland: the practitioner’s guide. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 303–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherednychenko O (2007) Fundamental rights, contract law and the protection of the weaker party. Utrecht University Institute for Legal Studies, Utrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherpillod I, de Dios Crespo Pérez J (2012) CAS 98/200 AEK Athens and Slavia Prague v. UEFA. In: Wild A (ed) CAS and football: landmark cases. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 11–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig W et al (2000) International chamber of commerce arbitration. Oceana Publications, New York, pp 342–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Cseres K, Mendes J (2014) Consumers’ access to EU competition law procedures: outer and inner limits. Common Market Law Rev 51:483–522

    Google Scholar 

  • de Groot D (2011) Chapter 16—the ex officio application of European competition law by arbitrators. In: Blanke G, Landolt Ph (eds) EU and US antitrust arbitration; a handbook for practitioners. Kluwer International Law, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 567–625

    Google Scholar 

  • Duval (2015) The Court of Arbitration and EU law: chronicle of an encounter. Maastricht J Eur Law 22:224–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Duve C, Troshchenovych O (2015) Seven steps to reforming the Court of Arbitration for Sport. World Sports Law Report 13:3–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Geisinger E, Mazuranic A (2013) Chapter 11—challenge and revision of the award. In: Geissinger E, Voser N (eds) International arbitration in Switzerland: a handbook for practitioners, 2nd edn. Kluwer International Law, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 223–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Handschin L, Schütz T (2014) Bemerkungen zum Fall Pechstein. SpuRt 21:179–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartkamp A (2012) European law and national private law: effect of EU law and European human rights law on legal relationships between individuals. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartkamp A (2014) Ex officio application in case of unenforceable contracts or contract clauses: EU law and national laws confronted. In: Gullifer L, Vogenauer S (eds) English and European perspectives on contract and commercial law—essays in honour of Hugh Beale. Bloomsbury, London, pp 467–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Heukamp F (2006) Schiedszusagen in der Europäischen fusionskontrolle. Carl Heymans Verlag, Cologne

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbig K (2006) Das gemeinschaftsrechtliche kartellverbot im internationalen handelsschiedsverfahren. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Idot L (2000) Une innovation surprenante: l’introduction de l’arbitrage dans le controle communautaire des concentrations. Revue de l’Arbitrage 15:591–613

    Google Scholar 

  • Komninos A (2011) Arbitration and EU competition law. In: Basedow et al (eds) International antitrust litigation—conflicts of laws and coordination. Hart publishing, Oxford, pp 191–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Komninos A (2008) EC private antitrust enforcement: decentralised application of EC competition law by National Courts. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kröll S (2015) Part II: commentary on the German arbitration law (10th Book of the German Code of Civil Procedure)cChapter VIII: recognition and enforcement of awards. In: Bockstiegel K et al (eds) Arbitration in Germany: the model law in practice, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 443–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Landolt Ph (2006) Modernised EC competition law in international arbitration. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Landolt Ph (2008) Note—8 March 2006—Swiss Supreme Court. Eur Bus Law Rev 19:129–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Landolt Ph (2011) Chapter 15: the application of EU competition law in international arbitration in Switzerland. In: Blanke G, Landolt Ph (eds) EU and US antitrust arbitration: a handbook for practitioners. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 545–565

    Google Scholar 

  • Lew J et al (2003) Comparative international commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer A (2013) The public policy exception under the New York Convention—history, interpretation and application, rev edn. Juris, Huntington

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavromati D, Reeb M (2015) The code of the Court of Arbitration for Sport—commentary, cases and materials. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier P (2015) Ein Urteil mit sprengkraft? Anmerkungen zum urteil des Oberlandesgerichts Bremen vom 30 Dezember 2014; 2 U 67/14. Causa Sport 11:62–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Muresan R (2014) Sportschiedsgerichtsbarkeit: wie weiter nach dem Pechstein-Urteil des Landgerichts München? Causa Sport 10:199–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto D, Elwan O (2010) Article V(2) In: Kronke H et al (eds) Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards: a global commentary on the New York Convention. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 345–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Radicati di Brozolo G (2011) Chapter 22: Court review of competition law awards in setting aside and enforcement proceedings. In: Blanke G, Landolt Ph (eds) EU and US antitrust arbitration; a handbook for practitioners. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 755–784

    Google Scholar 

  • Redfern A et al (2009) Redfern and Hunter on international arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Redfern A, Hunter M (2004) Law and practice of international commercial arbitration, 4th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherer M (2010) Introduction to the case law section. ASA Bull 28:498–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Snijders H (2014) New developments in national rules for ex officio raising points of Community law by national courts. In: Hartkamp A et al (eds) The influence of EU law on national private law. Kluwer International Law, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 95–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner S (2012) Public policy as ground for refusal of recognition of foreign arbitral awards with special focus on Austria & Hungary. Central European University, Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  • Steingruber A (2012) Consent in international arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirnimann F (2013) Chapter 11 revision of awards. In: Arroyo M (ed) Arbitration in Switzerland: the practitioner’s guide. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 1267–1281

    Google Scholar 

  • Stylopoulos E (2009) Powers and duties of arbitrators in the application of competition law: an EC approach in the light of recent developments. Eur Competit Law Rev 30:118–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaitiekunas A (2014) The Court of Arbitration for Sport: law-making and the question of independence. Stämpfli Verlag, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg A (2012) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg A (2014) Should the setting aside of the arbitral award be abolished? ICSID Rev 29:263–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Haegen O (2009) European public policy in commercial arbitration: bridge over troubled water? Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 16:449–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rompuy B (2015) The role of EU competition law in tackling abuse of regulatory power by sports associations. Maastricht J Eur Law 22:179–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Mehren R (2003) The Eco-Swiss case and international arbitration. Arbitr Int 19:465–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Quitzow C (2000) The Benetton judgment and its practical implications on arbitration. Stockh Arbitr Rep 2:33–36

    Google Scholar 

  • von Segesser G, Schramm D (2010) Claudia Pechstein v. International Skating Union (ISU) Federal Supreme Court, 4A_144/2010, 28 September 2010. In: A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Vieweg K, Staschik P (2015) The lex sportiva—the phenomenon and its meaning in the international sporting arena. In: Vieweg K (ed) Lex sportiva. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 18–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2014) Cases and materials on EU law, 11th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wild A (2012) CAS and football: landmark cases. TMC Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Marco van der Harst

Authors
  1. Marco van der Harst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco van der Harst .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Hague, The Netherlands

    Christophe Paulussen

  2. Research Department, Law of the European Union, T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Tamara Takacs

  3. Research Department, Private International Law, T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Vesna Lazić

  4. The Hague, The Netherlands

    Ben Van Rompuy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van der Harst, M. (2016). The Enforcement of CAS Arbitral Awards by National Courts and the Effective Protection of EU Law. In: Paulussen, C., Takacs, T., Lazić, V., Van Rompuy, B. (eds) Fundamental Rights in International and European Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-088-6_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-088-6_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-086-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-088-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation