Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bundesgerichtshof, Az. KZR 6/15, Pechstein v. International Skating Union (ISU), 7 June 2016

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2016

Part of the book series: Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration ((YISA))

Abstract

The January 2015 ruling of the Oberlandesgericht of Munich in the matter opposing the ice speed skater Claudia Pechstein to the International Skating Union (ISU) stirred up the international sports arbitration community as it impugned the very basis of the CAS dispute resolution system. Is CAS arbitration biased structurally towards SGBs, putting athletes at a disadvantage? Can athletes wanting to compete internationally be forced to agree to arbitration, or can they choose to have recourse to ordinary courts to protect their rights? In its landmark decision of 7 June 2016, the German Bundesgerichtshof quashed the verdict of the lower court and cleared the CAS dispute resolution system of Pechstein’s accusations, finding inter alia that there was no abuse of a dominant position and hence no violation of the German ordre public. To the Munich court’s credit, its controversial decision intensified the ongoing debate about the CAS’ independence, from which the CAS dispute resolution system will likely emerge both improved and strengthened.

With the assistance of Ms. Verena Wieditz, a former intern in LALIVE’s international arbitration group, to whom the authors express their gratitude.

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 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Maisonneuve 2015, pp. 335–347.

  2. 2.

    Pechstein was the first athlete ever to be suspended (for two years) because of irregular (i.e. neither negative nor positive results) blood samples.

  3. 3.

    Composed of Swiss arbitrators Dr. Stephan Netzle and Michele Bernasconi and presided by Italian arbitrator Massimo Coccia.

  4. 4.

    CAS 2009/A/1912 & 1913, Claudia Pechstein v. International Skating Union & Deutsche Eisschnelllauf Gemeinschaft e.V. v. International Skating Union, Award of 25 November 2009, paras 207 et seq.

  5. 5.

    Ibid.

  6. 6.

    SFT 4A_612/2009, decision of 10 February 2010, para 7.

  7. 7.

    Ibid., para 4.1.

  8. 8.

    ECHR, Application No. 67474/10, Pechstein v. Switzerland, 11 November 2010, p. 9.

  9. 9.

    Anno Hecker, Dopingnachweis nicht haltbar, 29 January 2015. http://www.faz.net/aktuell/sport/sportpolitik/claudia-pechstein-von-medizinischer-kommission-entlastet-13396925.html. Accessed 17 February 2017.

  10. 10.

    LG München, Az. 37 O 28331/12, Claudia Pechstein v. International Skating Union, 26 February 2014; SchiedsVZ 2014, pp. 100–112.

  11. 11.

    OLG München, Az. U 1110/14 Kart., Claudia Pechstein v. International Skating Union, 15 January 2015; SchiedsVZ 2015, pp. 40–47. See also Maisonneuve 2015, pp. 335–347.

  12. 12.

    Die Presse, Mehr wert als alle Medaillen zusammen—Gericht lässt Pechstein-Klage gegen Eislaufweltverband zu, 15 January 2015. http://diepresse.com/home/sport/wintersport/4639631/Mehr-wert-als-alle-Medaillen-zusammen. Accessed 17 February 2017.

  13. 13.

    BGH, Az. KZR 6/15, Pechstein v. International Skating Union, 7 June 2016; an English translation of the decision can be found in SchiedsVZ 2016, pp. 268–276.

  14. 14.

    Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Klagen über Klagen, Claudia Pechstein zieht vors Bundesverfassungsgericht, 12 July 2016. http://www.faz.net/aktuell/sport/mehr-sport/sport-kompakt/sport-kompakt-klagen-ueber-klagen-14336748.html. Accessed 17 February 2017.

  15. 15.

    BGH, Az. KZR 6/15, Pechstein v./ International Skating Union, 7 June 2016, paras 22 et seq.

  16. 16.

    Ibid., para 23, with reference to Sections 1025 et seq. of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).

  17. 17.

    Ibid., para 24.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., para 59. The German original reads: “Zudem vermag ein einheitliches Sportschiedsgericht zur Rechtsfortbildung im Rahmen des internationalen Sportrechts beizutragen. Zu den weiteren Vorteilen einer internationalen Sportschiedsgerichtsbarkeit gegenüber staatlichen Gerichten zählen darüber hinaus die besondere Fachkunde der Schiedsrichter, die im Hinblick auf termingebundene Sportereignisse insbesondere auch für den von einem Verfahren betroffenen Sportler besonders bedeutsame Schnelligkeit der Entscheidungsfindung sowie die internationale Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von Schiedssprüchen”.

  19. 19.

    Latty 2007, pp. 1–2.

  20. 20.

    Rigozzi 2005, p. 628.

  21. 21.

    BGH, Az. KZR 6/15, Pechstein v. International Skating Union, 7 June 2016, paras 30 and 34.

  22. 22.

    Ibid., paras 30–31.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., paras 46 et seq.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., para 49. The German original reads: “Nur eine unabhängige und faire Sportsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit kann weltweite Anerkennung erwarten, und jedem den fairen Wettkampf suchenden Sportler muss daran gelegen sein, dass mutmassliche Verstösse gegen die Anti-Doping-Regeln auch auf internationaler Ebene nach einheitlichen Massstäben und unter Gleichbehandlung der betroffenen Sportler aus unterschiedlichen Ländern aufgeklärt und sanktioniert werden.”

  25. 25.

    Ibid., paras 57 et seq.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., para 54.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., paras 67 et seq.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., para 70.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., para 49.

  30. 30.

    Rombach 2016, p. 278.

  31. 31.

    BGH, Az. KZR 6/15, Pechstein v. International Skating Union, 7 June 2016, para 49.

  32. 32.

    Ibid., para 50 (emphasis added). The German original reads: “In der gegenwärtigen Form stellen die Statuten des CAS eine noch hinnehmbare Ausgestaltung des Verfahrens bei der Bestellung der Schiedsrichter dar” (emphasis added).

  33. 33.

    For instance by following the example of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, which has started publishing the names of the arbitrators appointed in ICC cases on its website in 2016.

  34. 34.

    BGH, Az. KZR 6/15, Pechstein v. International Skating Union, 7 June 2016, paras 54 et seq.; Rombach 2016, p. 278.

  35. 35.

    Ibid., para 59. The German original reads: “Es ist daher allgemein anerkannt, dass insbesondere im Bereich des internationalen Sports Schiedsvereinbarungen zugunsten eines bestimmten Schiedsgerichts erforderlich sind, um ein einheitliches Vorgehen hinsichtlich der sportrechtlichen Regeln zu gewährleisten. Gerade im Bereich des Dopings ist die einheitliche Anwendung der Anti-Doping-Regeln der Verbände und des WADC zwingend erforderlich, um einen fairen internationalen sportlichen Wettbewerb der Athleten zu ermöglichen”.

  36. 36.

    SFT, 133 III 235, 244–245, para 4.3.2.3. The SFT held that the choice for athletes boils down to being allowed to participate in international competitions—and thus consenting, on the one hand, or merely “practicing one’s sport in one’s backyard”, on the other hand. The BGH refers itself to legal authors denying the athletes’ voluntary consent: BGH, Az. KZR 6/15, Pechstein v. International Skating Union, 7 June 2016, para 53 with reference to, e.g., Heermann 2015, p. 80. See also Duval 2017.

  37. 37.

    BGH, Az. KZR 6/15, Pechstein v. International Skating Union, 7 June 2016, para 56.

  38. 38.

    Rombach 2016, p. 278.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., p. 278.

  40. 40.

    ECHR, Application No. 67474/10, Pechstein v. Switzerland, 11 November 2010, p. 9.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., p. 9.

  42. 42.

    Ibid.

  43. 43.

    Article 6(1) ECHR.

  44. 44.

    Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2014, p. 7. http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.pdf. Accessed 27 February 2017; see also ECtHR, Case No. 8269/78, Adolf v. Austria, 26 March 1982, para 30.

  45. 45.

    ECtHR, Case No. 6\8\1976, Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, paras 82–83.

  46. 46.

    Switzerland considers sports disciplinary matters as civil law matters, see SFT, 119 II 271, Gundel v. FEI, 15 March 1993, paras A et seq.

  47. 47.

    CAS 2011/A/2426, Adamu v. FIFA, Award of 24 February 2012, para 66: “[t]he Panel is mindful that some guarantees afforded in relation to civil law proceedings by Article 6.1 of the ECHR are indirectly applicable even before an arbitral tribunal—all the more so in disciplinary matters—because the Swiss Confederation, as a contracting party to the ECHR, must ensure that its judges, when checking arbitral awards (at the enforcement stage or on the occasion of an appeal to set aside the award), verify that parties to an arbitration are guaranteed a fair proceeding within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial arbitral tribunal. These procedural principles thus form part of the Swiss procedural public policy.”

  48. 48.

    See SFT 4A.448/2013, decision of 27 March 2014.

  49. 49.

    SFT 119 II 271.

  50. 50.

    SFT 129 III 445.

  51. 51.

    Article R33 CAS Code.

  52. 52.

    Article S2 ICAS and CAS Statutes.

  53. 53.

    SFT 129 III 445, 450–463, paras 3.3.3 et seq. The IOC disqualified two skiers after the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City for doping. The International Ski Federation suspended the skiers for a period of two years. The athletes appealed to the CAS, calling for a reversal of the ruling. The subsequent challenge was grounded on the alleged bias in the CAS system, since it received funding from the IOC and could thus not be considered a truly independent body. The SFT held that the CAS offered all the guarantees of independence and impartiality allowing it to qualify as a real court of arbitration, even when the IOC, as in this case, was a party to the proceedings.

  54. 54.

    Article S4 CAS Code provides that four ICAS members are appointed by the International Federations (IFs), namely three by the Association of Summer Olympic IFs (ASOIF) and one by the Association of the Winter Olympic IFs (AIOWF), chosen from within or outside their members; four members are appointed by the Association of the National Olympic Committees (ANOC), chosen from within or outside its members; four members are appointed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), chosen from within or outside its members; four members are appointed by the twelve members of ICAS listed above, after appropriate consultation with a view to safeguarding the interests of the athletes; four members are appointed by the sixteen members of ICAS listed above, chosen from among personalities independent of the bodies designating the other members of the ICAS.

  55. 55.

    Article S14 CAS Code.

  56. 56.

    Antoine Duval, The Pechstein case: Transnational constitutionalism in inaction at the Bundesgerichtshof, 10 June 2016. http://verfassungsblog.de/the-pechstein-case-transnational-constitutionalism-in-inaction-at-the-bundesgerichtshof/. Accessed 17 February 2017.

  57. 57.

    SFT, 119 II 271, para 3.b.

  58. 58.

    Article R43 CAS Code.

  59. 59.

    ECHR Guide on Article 6, p. 32.

References

  • Duval A (2017) Not in My Name! Claudia Pechstein and the Post-Consensual Foundations of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law (MPIL) Research Paper No. 2017-01

    Google Scholar 

  • Heermann P (2015) Zukunft der Sportsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit sowie entsprechender Schiedsvereinbarungen im Lichte des Pechstein-Verfahrens sowie des § 11 RegE-AntiDopG. SchiedsVZ (Issue 2), pp. 78–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Latty F (2007) La lex sportiva – Recherche sur le droit transnational. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Maisonneuve M (2015) Oberlandesgericht München, Az. U 1110/14 Kart, Claudia Pechstein v/ International Skating Union (ISU), 15 January 2015. In: Duval A, Rigozzi A (eds) Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 335–347

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rigozzi A (2005) L’arbitrage international en matière de sport, Helbing Lichtenhahn, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Rombach A (2016) Case comments: Pechstein vs. CAS: Game, Set and Match for Sports Arbitration? SchiedsVZ, pp. 276–279

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LALIVE, Geneva, Switzerland

    Bernd Ehle & Ignacio Guaia

Authors
  1. Bernd Ehle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ignacio Guaia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernd Ehle .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ASSER International Sports Law Centre, T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Antoine Duval

  2. Faculté de droit, Université de Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

    Antonio Rigozzi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ehle, B., Guaia, I. (2017). Bundesgerichtshof, Az. KZR 6/15, Pechstein v. International Skating Union (ISU), 7 June 2016. In: Duval, A., Rigozzi, A. (eds) Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2016. Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/15757_2017_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/15757_2017_4

  • Published:

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

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-236-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-237-8

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation