Advertisement

Protecting Athletes’ Right to a Fair Trial Through EU Competition Law: The Pechstein Case

  • Antoine Duval
  • Ben Van RompuyEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In its Pechstein ruling, the Oberlandesgericht (OLG) München based itself on German antitrust law to challenge the validity of arbitration clauses in favour of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which are commonly used across the sporting world. Interestingly, competition law was used to indirectly secure a fundamental right enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: the right to a fair trial. In this chapter we analyse whether the OLG could have come to a similar result based on Article 102 TFEU, the EU competition law provision prohibiting the abuse of a dominant position. If the reasoning used by the OLG can be transposed into EU competition law, this would have even more significant consequences for the future of the CAS. The finding of a violation of Article 102 TFEU would give the case a supranational scope and open the door to follow-on damage claims by athletes in all EU Member States. The chapter is structured as follows. The first part elucidates the legal underpinnings of the jurisdiction of the CAS and explicates the forced nature of CAS arbitration. The second part examines whether the imposition of forced CAS arbitration clauses by sports governing bodies may constitute an exploitative abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU. It will be argued that the answer to this question ultimately depends on the independence of the CAS. The third part, subsequently, scrutinizes whether the CAS fulfils this fundamental requirement. Finally, conclusions are drawn about the challenges ahead for the CAS in the aftermath of the Pechstein case.

Keywords

Court of arbitration for sport Arbitration Voluntary consent EU competition law Right to a fair trial Sports law Exploitative abuse of a dominant position 

References

  1. Akman P (2009a) Searching for the long-lost soul of article 82 EC. Oxford J Legal Stud 29:267–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akman P (2009b) Exploitative abuse in article 82 EC: back to basics? Cambridge Yearbook Eur Legal Stud 11:165–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ansley C (1995) International athletic dispute resolution: tarnishing the Olympic dream. Arizona J Int Comp Law 12:277–302Google Scholar
  4. Beffa L (2011) Challenge of international arbitration awards in Switzerland for lack of independence and/or impartiality—is it time to change the approach? ASA Bull 29:598–606Google Scholar
  5. Bersheda T (2009) Les clauses d’arbitrage statutaires en droit suisse. ASA Bull 27:691–716Google Scholar
  6. Besson S (2006) Arbitration and human rights. ASA Bull 24:395–416Google Scholar
  7. Blackshaw I (2003) The Court of Arbitration for Sport: an international forum for settling disputes effectively ‘within the family of sport’. Entertain Law 2:61–83Google Scholar
  8. Coccia M (2013) International sports justice: the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Eur Sports Law Policy Bull 2013:23–76Google Scholar
  9. De Smijter E, Sinclair A (2014) The enforcement system under regulation 1/2003. In: Faull J, Nikpay A (eds) The EU law of competition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 91–181Google Scholar
  10. Demaine LJ, Hensler DR (2004) ‘Volunteering’ to arbitrate through predispute arbitration clause: the average consumer’s experience. Law Contemp Prob 67:55–74Google Scholar
  11. Downie R (2011) Improving the performance of sport’s ultimate umpire: reforming the governance of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Melbourne J Int Law 12:315–344Google Scholar
  12. Duval A (2013) Lex sportiva: a playground for transnational law. Eur Law J 19:822–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans DS, Padilla AJ (2005) Excessive prices: using economics to define administrable legal rules. J Comp Law Econ 1:97–122Google Scholar
  14. Gubi J (2008) The Olympic binding arbitration clause and the Court of Arbitration for Sport: an analysis of due process concerns. Fordham Intell Prop Media Entertain Law J 18:997–1024Google Scholar
  15. Haas U (2009) International Sportschiedsgerichtsbarkeit und EMRK. Zeitschrift für Schiedsverfahren 7:73–84Google Scholar
  16. Haas U (2012) Role and application of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in CAS procedures. International Sports Law Review 12:43–60Google Scholar
  17. Haas H (2014) Zwangsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit im Sport und EMRK. ASA Bull 32:707–734Google Scholar
  18. Jarrosson C (2001) Les frontières de l’arbitrage. Revue de l’Arbitrage 1:5–41Google Scholar
  19. Joliet R (1970) Monopolization and abuse of dominant position. A comparative study of the American and European approaches to the control of economic power. Martinus Nijhoff, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaufmann-Kohler G ‘Preface’ to Rigozzi A (2005) L’arbitrage international en matière de sport. Bruylant, L.G.D.J., Helbing & Lichtenhahn, BâleGoogle Scholar
  21. Klees AM (2006) Breaking the habits: the german competition law after the 7th amendment to the Act against Restraints of Competition (GWB). German Law J 7:399–419Google Scholar
  22. Krausz N (2011) Waiver of appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal: recent evolution of the case law and compatibility with ECHR, article 6. J Int Arbitr 28:137–162Google Scholar
  23. Latty F (2007) Lex sportiva: recherche sur le droit transnational. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lukomski J (2013) Arbitration clauses in sport governing bodies’ statutes: consent or constraint? Analysis from the perspective of article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Int Sports Law J 13:60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maisonneuve M (2011) L’arbitrage des litiges sportifs. L.G.D.J, ParisGoogle Scholar
  26. Mavromati D (2011) Selected issues related to CAS jurisdiction in the light of the jurisprudence of the Swiss Supreme Court. CAS/TAS Bull 2011:31–40Google Scholar
  27. Mavromati D (2015) Arbitration clause in the contract or in the rules of the federation in disputes brought before the CAS. www.ssrn.com/abstract=2573612. Accessed 15 July 2015
  28. McLaren RH (2001) The Court of Arbitration for Sport: an independent arena for the world’s sports disputes. Valparaiso Univ Law Rev 35:379–405Google Scholar
  29. McLaren RH (2010) Twenty-five years of the Court of Arbitration for sport: a look in the rear-view mirror. Marquette Sports Law Rev 20:305–333Google Scholar
  30. Meij A, Baumé T (2012) Balancing object and effect analysis in identifying abuses of a dominant position under article 102 TFEU. In: Bourgeois J, Waelbroeck D (eds) Ten years of effects-based approach in EU competition law. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 159–184Google Scholar
  31. Mitten MJ, Opie H (2010) Sports law: implications for the development of international comparative and national law and global dispute resolution. Tulane Law Review 85:269–322Google Scholar
  32. Moses ML (2014) Challenges for the future: the diminishing role of consent in arbitration. www.ssrn.com/abstract=2479426. Accessed 15 July 2015
  33. Motta M, Streel A de (2007) Excessive Pricing in competition law: never say never. In: The pros and cons of high prices. Konkurrensverket, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  34. Muresan R and Korff N (2014) Sportschiedsgerichtsbarkeit: Wie weiter nach dem ‘Pechstein Urteil’ des Landgerichts München?, Causa Sport 199–211Google Scholar
  35. Nafziger JAR (2002) Dispute resolution in the arena of international sports competition? Am J Comp Law 50:161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nazzini R (2011) The foundations of European competition law: the objective and principles of Article 102. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Niedermaier T (2014) Arbitration agreements between parties of unequal bargaining power—balancing exercises on either side of the Atlantic. Zeitschrift für Deutsches und Amerikanisches Recht 39:12–20Google Scholar
  38. O’Donoghue R, Padilla AJ (2013) The law and economics of Article 102 TFEU, 2nd edn. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  39. Paulsson J (1993) Arbitration of international sports disputes. Arbitr Int 9:359–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pinna A (2008) Réflexions sur l’arbitrage forcé. Gazette du Palais n°351. www.degaullefleurance.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Arbitrage-forc%C3%A9-Gazette-du-palais.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2015
  41. Ravjani A (2010) The Court of Arbitration for Sport: a subtle form of international delegation. CAS/TAS Bull 2010(1):13–29Google Scholar
  42. Reeb M (ed) (1998) Digest of CAS awards 1986-1998. Staempfli Editions, BerneGoogle Scholar
  43. Reeb M (ed) (2004) Digest of CAS awards 2001-2003. Kluwer Law International, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  44. Reilly L (2012) An Introduction to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) & the role of national courts in international sports disputes. J Dispute Resolut 5:63–81Google Scholar
  45. Rigozzi A (2005) L’arbitrage international en matière de sport. D.J., Helbing & Lichtenhahn, BâleGoogle Scholar
  46. Rigozzi A (2010) Challenging awards of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. J Int Dispute Settl 1:217–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rigozzi A (2013) L’importance du droit suisse de l’arbitrage dans la résolution des litiges sportifs internationaux. Zeitschrift fur Schweizerisches Recht 132:301–325Google Scholar
  48. Rigozzi A, Robert-Tissot F (2012) La pertinence du ‘consentement’ dans l’arbitrage du Tribunal Arbitral du Sport. Jusletter 2012. www.lk-k.com/data/document/rigozzi-robert-tissot-pertinence-consentement-dans-arbitrage-tas-jusletter-2012.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2015
  49. Rigozzi A, Robert-Tissot F (2015) ‘Consent’ in sports arbitration: its multiple aspects. In: Geisinger E, Trabaldo de Mestral E (eds) Sports arbitration: a coach for other players? ASA Special Series, pp 59–95Google Scholar
  50. de la Rochefoucauld E (2011) L’indépendance des arbitres devant le TAS. CAS/TAS Bull 2011(2):27–34Google Scholar
  51. Röller L-H (2008) Exploitative abuses. In: Ehlermann C-D, Marquis M (eds) European competition law annual 2007: a reformed approach to article 82 EC. Hart Publishing, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  52. Roma E (2011) Mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts and the need for meaningful judicial review. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & Law 12:519–544Google Scholar
  53. Romano VC (2014) Nullita di clausole compromissorie negli arbitrati sportivi per squilibrio strutturale tra i contraenti. Diritto del Commercio Internazionale 28:543–548Google Scholar
  54. Steingruber AM (2009) Sports arbitration: how the structure and other features of competitive sports affect consent as it relates to waiving judicial control. Am Rev Int Arbitr 20:59–96Google Scholar
  55. Vaitiekunas A (2014) The Court of Arbitration for Sport: law-making and the question of independence. Stämpfli, BernGoogle Scholar
  56. Veuthey A (2013) Re-questioning the independence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport in light of the scope of its review. Int Sports Law Rev 13:105–115Google Scholar
  57. Voser N, Wittmer S (2015) The most recent decision in the Pechstein saga: red flag for sports arbitration? Kluwer Arbitration Blog. http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2015/01/22/the-most-recent-decision-in-the-pechstein-saga-red-flag-for-sports-arbitration/. Accessed 15 July 2015
  58. Weston MA (2009) Doping control, mandatory arbitration, and process dangers for accused athletes in international sports. Pepperdine Dispute Resolut Law J 10:5–50Google Scholar
  59. Yi DH (2006) Turning medals into metal: evaluating the Court of Arbitration of sport as an international tribunal. Asper Review of international business and trade Law 6:289–341Google Scholar
  60. Zen-Ruffinen P (2012) La nécessaire réforme du Tribunal Arbitral du Sport. In: Rigozzi A, Sprumont D, Haffner Y (eds) Citius, Altius, Fortius, Mélanges en l’honneur de Denis Oswald. Helbing Lichterihahn, Bâle, pp 483–537Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.T.M.C. Asser InstituutThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations