Skip to main content
Book cover

Fundamental Rights in International and European Law pp 245–278Cite as

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

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

Dr. Antoine Duval is Senior Researcher in International and European sports law at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut. Prof. Dr. Ben Van Rompuy is Senior Researcher at the T.M.C Asser Instituut and Professor of Competition Policy and Media Regulation at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-94-6265-088-6_11
  • Chapter length: 34 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-94-6265-088-6
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Oberlandesgericht (OLG) München, 15 January 2015, Az. U 1110/14 Kart. https://openjur.de/u/756385.html. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  2. 2.

    See e.g. Matt Slater, ‘Claudia Pechstein puts sport's supreme court on trial’ (BBC Sport, 19 February 2015); Brian Homewood, ‘Pechstein ruling threatens sport's arbitration system, says CAS’ (Reuters, 27 March 2015).

  3. 3.

    In the words of the Swiss Federal Tribunal in its judgment of 27 May 2003, Lazutina & Danilova v. Comité International Olympique (IOC) & Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS), 4.P267,268,269&270/2000, at 3.3.3.3.

  4. 4.

    On the application of the notion of jurisprudence to the decisional practice of the CAS see Maisonneuve 2011.

  5. 5.

    See Latty 2007 and Duval 2013.

  6. 6.

    Landesgericht (LG) München, 26. February 2014, 37 O 28331/12. https://openjur.de/u/678775.html. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  7. 7.

    Rigozzi and Robert-Tissot 2012.

  8. 8.

    See Jarrosson 2001, pp. 19–20.

  9. 9.

    ‘Le forçage est tellement aux antipodes de la conception communément admise de l’arbitrage, assis sur des bases conventionnelles, qu’il paraît impossible de parler d’arbitrage forcé.’ Pinna 2008, p. 1.

  10. 10.

    Mitten and Opie 2010, p. 285.

  11. 11.

    McLaren 2001, p. 382.

  12. 12.

    Ansley 1995, p. 298.

  13. 13.

    Reilly 2012, p. 66.

  14. 14.

    Coccia 2013, p. 34.

  15. 15.

    Paulsson 1993, p. 369.

  16. 16.

    For the latest version, http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Code20201320corrections20finales20_en_.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  17. 17.

    For an English translation of the PILA, see https://www.swissarbitration.org/sa/download/IPRG_english.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  18. 18.

    SFT, 19 April 2011, A. v. Trabzonspor Kulübü Dernegi & Turkish Football Federation (TFF), 4A_404/2010, at 4.2.2. Where not otherwise indicated we use the English translations of the SFT’s judgments provided on www.swissarbitrationdecisions.com/. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  19. 19.

    SFT, 20 June 2013, Egyptian Football Association v. Al-Masry Sporting Club, 4A_682/2012, at 4.4.1.

  20. 20.

    SFT, 31 October 1996, Nagel v. Fédération Equestre Internationale, 4C_44/1996, at 2. The English translation used is the one provided in Reeb 1998, pp. 585–592.

  21. 21.

    CAS 2009/A/1910, Telecom Egypt Club v. Egyptian Football Association (EFA), award of 9 September 2010, para 6.

  22. 22.

    For a comprehensive review of the jurisprudence of both the CAS and the SFT on the issue of consent to CAS jurisdiction, see Mavromati 2015.

  23. 23.

    See more generally on the use of arbitral clauses by reference to Swiss law, Bersheda 2009.

  24. 24.

    SFT, 31 October 1996, Nagel v. Fédération Equestre Internationale, 4C_44/1996.

  25. 25.

    SFT, 31 October 1996, Nagel v. Fédération Equestre Internationale, 4C_44/1996, at 3.C.

  26. 26.

    Ibid.

  27. 27.

    Ibid.

  28. 28.

    Ibid.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., at 4.b.

  30. 30.

    Ibid.

  31. 31.

    SFT, 7 February 2001, Roberts v. International basket Federation (FIBA) & Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), 4P.230/2000. See also the original CAS award CAS 2000/A/262 R. / International Basketball Federation (FIBA), preliminary award of 28 July 2000.

  32. 32.

    For the Nagel case see CAS 2000/A/262 R. / International Basketball Federation (FIBA), preliminary award of 28 July 2000, paras 39, 44. For the Roberts case see Arbitrage TAS 2002/A/431 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) / R. & Fédération Française de Cyclisme (FFC), sentence du 23 mai 2003, para 4.

  33. 33.

    See SFT, 23 March 2004, A. v. B., 4P.253/2003, at 5.3; SFT, 22 March 2007, Cañas. v. ATp Tour, 4P.172/2006, at 4.3.2.3; SFT, 9 January 2009, A. v. Fédération International de Football Association (FIFA) & World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 4A_460/2008, at 6.2; SFT, 6 November 2009, A. v. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 4A_358/2009, at 3.2.4; SFT, 20 January 2010, X. v. Y. & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA),4A_548/2009, at 3.2.2 and 4.1; SFT, 18 April 2011, A. v. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), Fédération International de Football Association (FIFA) & Cyprus Football Association (CFA), 4A_640/2010, at 3.2.2.

  34. 34.

    See SFT, 20 January 2010, X. v. Y. & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA),4A_548/2009, confirming the CAS award CAS 2009/A/1881 E. v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) & Al-Ahly Sporting Club, partial award on lis pendens and jurisdiction of 7 October 2009.

  35. 35.

    SFT, 20 January 2010, X. v. Y. & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA),4A_548/2009, at 4.2.2.

  36. 36.

    Ibid.

  37. 37.

    SFT, 23 March 2004, A. v. B., 4P.253/2003.

  38. 38.

    SFT, 28 August 2007, X v. Y., 4A_160/2007, at 3.4.

  39. 39.

    The CAS has had to deal with this particular question in numerous instances. For a good summary of its view on the matter see CAS 2011/A/2472 Al-Wehda Club v. Saudi Arabian Football Federation (SAFF), award of 12 August 2011, para 20:

    • Article 63 para 1 of the current FIFA Statutes does not by itself grant jurisdiction to the CAS with respect to decisions passed by confederations, members or leagues;

    • the FIFA Statutes do not contain any mandatory provision that obliges a national federation or a league to allow a right of appeal from its decisions;

    • if the FIFA Statutes did compel the national federation or the league to provide for a right of appeal from its decisions, no right of appeal to the CAS would exist until the national federation or the league had made provision for this right in its statutes or regulations; however;

    • in light of Article 63 paras 5 and 6 of the current FIFA Statutes, an express reference made by a national federation’s statutes to FIFA Statutes allows a CAS Panel to claim jurisdiction with respect to a national federation’s decision on a doping matter.

    See also with a similar or identical reasoning: CAS 2005/A/952 Ashley Cole v. Football Association Premier League (FAPL), award of 24 January 2006.

  40. 40.

    CAS 2008/A/1564, World Anti-doping Agency (WADA) v. International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) & Florian Busch, award of 23 June 2009, paras 1–26.

  41. 41.

    SFT, 6 November 2009, A. v. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 4A_358/2009, at 3.2.3 and 3.2.4.

  42. 42.

    SFT, 20 January 2010, X. v. Y. & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), 4A_548/2009, at 4.1.

  43. 43.

    ‘Furthermore, by lodging the appeal, participating in these proceedings without reservation and/or by signing the Order of Procedure, the parties have actively acknowledged the competence of CAS to deal with this dispute’, CAS 2008/A/1705 Grasshopper v. Alianza Lima, award of 18 June 2009, para5. See also CAS 2008/A/1708 Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran (IRIFF) v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), award of 4 November 2009, paras 4–5.

  44. 44.

    SFT, 20 June 2013, Egyptian Football Association v. Al-Masry Sporting Club , 4A_682/2012, at 4.2.2.1 & 4.2.2.2.

  45. 45.

    For a glimpse at the US debate see Demaine and Hensler 2004, pp. 55–74; Roma 2011, pp. 519–544; Moses 2014.

  46. 46.

    See Kaufmann-Kohler 2005, p. XV.

  47. 47.

    Rigozzi 2005, pp. 421–433; Rigozzi and Robert-Tissot 2015; Maisonneuve 2011, pp. 191–225; Steingruber 2009.

  48. 48.

    Mavromati 2011.

  49. 49.

    Ibid.

  50. 50.

    Rigozzi and Robert-Tissot 2015, p. 59.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., p. 60. Similarly, Steingruber 2009, p. 73; Weston 2009, p. 8; Yi 2006, p. 312.

  52. 52.

    Haas 2012, p. 45.

  53. 53.

    On this aspect of the case see Krausz 2011, pp. 144–146; Rigozzi and Robert-Tissot 2012.

  54. 54.

    ‘Par identité de motifs, il est évident que la renonciation à recourir contre une sentence à venir, lorsqu'elle émane d'un athlète, ne sera généralement pas le fait d'une volonté librement exprimée’, SFT, 22 March 2007, Cañas. v. ATp Tour, 4P.172/2006, at 4.3.2.2. For the English translation used, see http://law.marquette.edu/assets/sports-law/pdf/2012-conf-canas-english.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  55. 55.

    ‘Qu'il y ait un certain illogisme, en théorie, à traiter de manière différente la convention d'arbitrage et la renonciation conventionnelle au recours, sous les rapports de la forme et du consentement, est sans doute vrai’, SFT, 22 March 2007, Cañas. v. ATp Tour, 4P.172/2006, at 4.3.2.3.

  56. 56.

    SFT, 22 March 2007, Cañas. v. ATp Tour, 4P.172/2006, at 4.3.2.3.

  57. 57.

    SFT, 20 January 2010, X. v. Y. & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), 4A_548/2009, at 4.1; SFT, 18 April 2011, A. v. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), Fédération International de Football Association (FIFA) & Cyprus Football Association (CFA), 4A_640/2010, at 3.2.2; SFT, 7 November 2011, X. v. Y., 4A_246/2011, at 2.2.2; SFT, 13 February 2012, A & B v. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) & Flemish Tennis Federation, 4A_428/2011, at 3.2.3.

  58. 58.

    4A_358/2009, at 3.2.4; SFT, 18 April 2011, A. v. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), Fédération International de Football Association (FIFA) & Cyprus Football Association (CFA), 4A_640/2010, at 3.2.2; SFT, 7 November 2011, X. v. Y., 4A_246/2011, at 2.2.2; SFT, 13 February 2012, A & B v. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) & Flemish Tennis Federation, 4A_428/2011, at 3.2.3.

  59. 59.

    SFT, 20 January 2010, X. v. Y. & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), 4A_548/2009, at 4.1; SFT, 13 February 2012, A & B v. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) & Flemish Tennis Federation, 4A_428/2011, at 3.2.3.

  60. 60.

    SFT, 13 February 2012, A & B v. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) & Flemish Tennis Federation, 4A_428/2011, at 3.2.3.

  61. 61.

    ‘It may be useful to add as to the consensual nature or not of the arbitration at hand that one hardly sees from the point of view of the freedom to contract what difference there could be for an athlete who has no other choice than accepting the arbitration clause contained in the Regulations of the sport federation to which he is affiliated, whether the aforesaid federation adopted the Regulations on its own initiative or pursuant to a requirement of the state in which it is based.’ Ibid., at 3.2.3.

  62. 62.

    LG München, 26 February 2014, 37 O 28331/12, at A.III.3 and 4.

  63. 63.

    ‘Ohne Unterzeichnung der Schiedsvereinbarung der Beklagten zu 2) wäre es der Klägerin nicht möglich gewesen, an dem Wettkampf am 7./8.2.2009 in Hamar teilzunehmen’. Ibid., at A.III.3b)bb).

  64. 64.

    ‘Die Wettkampfteilnahme bei den Beklagten ist für die Klägerin angesichts deren Monopolstellung die einzige Möglichkeit, ihren Beruf angemessen auszuüben und gegen andere professionelle Konkurrenten anzutreten’, Ibid., at A.III.3b)bb).

  65. 65.

    ‘Entgegen der Auffassung der Beklagten zu 1) ist eine Freiwilligkeit nicht aufgrund des fehlenden Vorbringens von Einwänden oder der Abänderung oder Streichung der Zuständigkeit des Schiedsgerichtes anzunehmen.’ Ibid., at A.III.3b).

  66. 66.

    Ibid., at A.III.3.c)bb).

  67. 67.

    Haas 2014.

  68. 68.

    ‘Fehlt aber, wie vorliegend, ein derartiger freier Wille, kann der “wohlwollende“ Prüfungsmaßstab (BGE 133 III 235, E. 4.3.2.3), den das Schweizerische Bundesgericht anlegt, keine Anwendung finden.’ LG München, 26. Februar 2014, 37 O 28331/12, at A.III.3.c)bb)(2).

  69. 69.

    ‘Dieser Argumentation kann angesichts der Garantien der Articles 6 und 13 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention nicht gefolgt werden.’ Ibid., at A.III.3c)bb)(1).

  70. 70.

    Critical of the compatibility with the ECHR see Lukomski 2013, p. 70. Less definitive on the compatibility, but pointing at the difficulty, see Besson 2006, p. 398; Steingruber 2009, p. 74. Asking a similar question in the US context, Gubi 2008, p. 1011.

  71. 71.

    Haas 2014; Rigozzi and Robert-Tissot 2015, pp. 71–72; Romano 2014, p. 545.

  72. 72.

    OLG München, 15 January 2015, Az. U 1110/14 Kart, at II.3.b)aa).

  73. 73.

    See Sects. 11.2 and 11.3 of this chapter.

  74. 74.

    Case 14/68 Walt Wilhelm v. Bundeskartellamt [1969] ECR 1.

  75. 75.

    Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Arts. 81 and 82 of the Treaty (2003) OJ L1/1. The application of a double legal basis also avoids legal challenges in those cases where it would eventually appear that there was no effect on trade (i.e. the decision would still stand on the basis of the national competition law provision). De Smijter and Sinclair 2014, p. 102.

  76. 76.

    Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (2003) OJ L1/1, Recital 8 (‘Member States should not under this Regulation be precluded from adopting and applying on their territory stricter national competition laws which prohibit or impose sanctions on unilateral conduct engaged in by undertakings’).

  77. 77.

    Klees 2006, pp. 405–406.

  78. 78.

    See International Competition Network (ICN) Report on Abuse of Superior Bargaining Position Prepared by the Task Force for Abuse of Superior Bargaining Position (2008).

  79. 79.

    Section 20(1) GWB.

  80. 80.

    Act against Restraints of Competition (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen) Section 20(4).

  81. 81.

    Ibid. Section 19(1) GWB states that ‘(t)he abusive exploitation of a dominant position by one or several undertakings shall be prohibited’ and Section 19(4) GWB contains a list of examples of different types of abuse.

  82. 82.

    OLG München, 15 January 2015, Az. U 1110/14 Kart, at II.3)b)bb)(3).

  83. 83.

    De Smijter and Sinclair 2014, p. 107.

  84. 84.

    OLG München, 15 January 2015, Az. U 1110/14 Kart, at II.3)b)aa).

  85. 85.

    ISU General Regulations (2014), Rule 104(14).

  86. 86.

    Ibid., Rule 107(17).

  87. 87.

    Joined Cases C-395/96 P; C-396/96 p Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports SA and others v. Commission [2000] ECR II-1365, paras 36-39. See also Case T-193/02 Laurent Piau v. Commission [2005] ECR II-209, para 111.

  88. 88.

    ISU General Regulations (2014), Rule 102(2).

  89. 89.

    Ibid., Rule 103(2).

  90. 90.

    See e.g. Case 322/81 NV Nederlandsche Banden Industrie Michelin v. Commission [1983] ECR 3461, para 10.

  91. 91.

    Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche v. Commission [1979] ECR 61, para 91.

  92. 92.

    In the early days of EU competition law, it was in fact uncertain whether Article 102 TFEU applied to exclusionary abuses. It was argued that the drafters of the Treaty only intended to prohibit exploitative abuses by dominant undertakings. See, e.g. Joliet 1970. See also Akman 2009a (demonstrating that the travaux préparatoires of the EEC Treaty do not support the claim that Article 102 TFEU was intended to prohibit exclusionary abuses).

  93. 93.

    European Commission, Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings [2009] OJ C 45/7.

  94. 94.

    See, e.g. Nazzini 2011, pp. 275–280; Motta and de Streel 2008; Röller 2008; Evans and Padilla 2005.

  95. 95.

    Ibid.

  96. 96.

    Akman 2009b.

  97. 97.

    Article 101 TFEU prohibits ‘all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market’.

  98. 98.

    See, e.g. Economic Advisory Group on Competition Policy (EAGCP), Report on ‘An Economic Approach to Article 82 EC’ (2005) (‘we should not fall into the trap of active intervention and fine-tuning; whenever possible, competition is to be preferred to detailed regulation as the best mechanism to avoid inefficiencies and foster productivity and growth; this calls for a non-dirigiste approach to competition policy that focuses in most cases on entry barriers; in the context of Article [102], it is then natural to focus on competitive harm that arises from exclusionary strategies—possible exceptions concern some natural monopoly industries which may require ongoing supervision of access prices and conditions by regulatory agencies’).

  99. 99.

    Meij and Baumé 2012, p. 160.

  100. 100.

    2000/12/EC: Commission Decision of 20 July 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case IV/36.888—1998 Football World Cup) [2000] OJ L5/55, para 100 (finding that the organizing committee of the 1998 FIFA World Cup had abused its dominant position by imposing unfair trading conditions on consumers outside France).

  101. 101.

    Joined Cases T-191/98, T-212/98 to T-214/98T and 191/98, Atlantic Container Line AB and Others v. Commission [2003] ECR II-3275, para 1124.

  102. 102.

    O’Donoghue and Padilla 2013, pp. 849–859.

  103. 103.

    OLG München, 15 January 2015, Az. U 1110/14 Kart, at II.3)b)bb)(3)aaa)a-1) & a-2).

  104. 104.

    Ibid., at II.3)b)bb)(3)aaa)a-1).

  105. 105.

    See e.g. Voser and Wittmer 2015.

  106. 106.

    See, e.g. European Commission, DSD [2001] OJ L166/1, para 112 (‘Unfair commercial terms exist where an undertaking in a dominant position fails to comply with the principle of proportionality’), confirmed on appeal in Case T-151/01 Der Grüne Punkt—Duales System Deutschland GmbH v Commission [2007] ECR-II 1607 and C-385/07 p Der Grüne Punkt—Duales System Deutschland GmbH v Commission [2009] ECR-I 6155.

  107. 107.

    Nazzini 2011, pp. 300–304.

  108. 108.

    Niedermaier 2014, p. 14.

  109. 109.

    OLG München, 15 January 2015, Az. U 1110/14 Kart, at II.3)bb)(2)aaa).

  110. 110.

    Ibid., at II.3)bb)(2)aaa).

  111. 111.

    See, by analogy, Case 127/73 Belgische Radio en Televisie and société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs v. SV SABAM and NV Fonior [1974] ECR 313, para 15 (holding that a dominant undertaking entrusted with the exploitation of copyrights imposing ‘on its members obligations which are not absolutely necessary for the attainment of its object and which thus encroach unfairly upon a member’s freedom to exercise his copyright’ can constitute exploitative abuse).

  112. 112.

    Case C-209/10 Post Danmark v. Konkurrencerådet, Judgment of 27 March 2012, not yet reported, paras 41–42. The CJ essentially adopted the approach followed by the Commission in its Guidance Paper on Article 102 TFEU. European Commission, Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings [2009] OJ C 45/7, paras 28–31. In Piau, the GC concluded that FIFA’s conduct on the market for players’ agents’ services did not infringe Article 102 TFEU given that the most restrictive provisions of the FIFA Players’ Agents Regulations had been deleted (following the administrative procedure initiated by the Commission) and that the licensing system could enjoy an exemption under Article 101(3) TFEU. This might be seen as an early example of a successful efficiency defence under Article 102 TFEU. Case T-193/02 Laurent Piau v. Commission [2005] ECR II-209, paras 117–119.

  113. 113.

    Besson 2006, pp. 400–402; Haas 2009, p. 84.

  114. 114.

    SFT, 15 March 1993, Gundel v. Fédération Equestre Internationale, 4P.217/1992. The English translation used is the one provided in Reeb 1998, pp. 561–575.

  115. 115.

    Ibid., 3)b). See Reeb 1998, p. 567.

  116. 116.

    Ibid. See Reeb 1998, p. 569.

  117. 117.

    Ibid.

  118. 118.

    Ibid.

  119. 119.

    Ibid.

  120. 120.

    Ibid. See Reeb 1998, pp. 569–570.

  121. 121.

    On the reform see the official history provided on www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/history-of-the-cas.html. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  122. 122.

    On the creation of ICAS, see McLaren 2010, p. 307.

  123. 123.

    Ravjani 2010, p. 23.

  124. 124.

    SFT, 27 May 2003, Lazutina & Danilova v. Comité International Olympique (IOC) & Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS), 4.P267,268,269&270/2000, at 3. The English translation used is the one provided in Reeb 2004, p. 678.

  125. 125.

    Ibid., at 3.3.3.2. See Reeb 2004, p. 684.

  126. 126.

    Ibid.

  127. 127.

    Ibid. See Reeb 2004, p. 685.

  128. 128.

    Ibid.

  129. 129.

    Ibid.

  130. 130.

    Ibid. See Reeb 2004, p. 686.

  131. 131.

    Ibid. See Reeb 2004, p. 687.

  132. 132.

    Ibid. See Reeb 2004, pp. 687–688.

  133. 133.

    Ibid. See Reeb 2004, p. 688.

  134. 134.

    Ibid., at 3.3.3.3. See Reeb 2004, p. 688.

  135. 135.

    Ibid.

  136. 136.

    Ibid. See Reeb 2004, pp. 688–689.

  137. 137.

    .

  138. 138.

    Ibid, 3.3.3.2. See Reeb 2004, p. 686.

  139. 139.

    See the reference to the Lazutina decision in the SFT’s judgement in the Pechstein case, SFT, 10 February 2010, Pechstein v. International Skating Union (ISU) & Deutsche Eisschnelllauf Gemeinschaft e.V., 4A_612/2009, at 3.1.3.

  140. 140.

    Nafziger 2002, p. 168; McLaren 2001; Blackshaw 2003.

  141. 141.

    McLaren 2010, p. 305.

  142. 142.

    See reviewing the case law of the CAS and the SFT regarding the independence of arbitrators Rochefoucauld de la 2011, pp. 32–34; Rigozzi 2010, pp. 236- 241. See critical of the position of the SFT in this regard, Beffa 2011, pp. 598–606.

  143. 143.

    See very recently, Vaitiekunas 2014. See also Zen-Ruffinen 2012, pp. 500–508; Downie 2011; Veuthey 2013; Rigozzi 2013, pp. 304–309; Gubi 2008; Yi 2006, pp. 314–317.

  144. 144.

    Yi 2006, p. 318.

  145. 145.

    ‘Die genannten Verbände haben bestimmenden Einfluss auf die Auswahl der Personen, die als Schiedsrichter in Betracht kommen.’ OLG München, 15 January 2015, Az. U 1110/14 Kart, at II.3.b)bb)(3)aaa). The translation used is our own and is freely available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2561297. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  146. 146.

    ‘Die Verbände stellen schon mit den zwölf von ihnen unmittelbar ernannten Mitgliedern die Mehrheit der Mitglieder des ICAS. Bereits dadurch kommt ihnen wegen des für Entscheidungen des ICAS geltenden Mehrheitsprinzips ein Übergewicht zu, das es ihnen ermöglicht, auf die Zusammensetzung der Schiedsrichterliste bestimmenden Einfluss zu nehmen.’ Ibid., at II.3.b)bb)(3)aaa)a-1).

  147. 147.

    ‘Auch die Statuten selbst gehen von einer Abhängigkeit der Mehrheit sowohl der Mitglieder des ICAS als auch der in die Liste aufzunehmenden Personen aus, da sie nur für die vier zuletzt zu ernennenden Mitglieder des ICAS und das letzte Fünftel der Listenangehörigen deren Unabhängigkeit von den Organisationen fordern, welche für die Benennung der anderen verantwortlich waren.’ Ibid.

  148. 148.

    Ibid.

  149. 149.

    ‘Dieses Einflussübergewicht begründet die Gefahr, dass die in die Schiedsrichterlisten aufgenommenen Personen mehrheitlich oder sogar vollständig den Verbänden näher stehen als den Athleten; auch hinsichtlich der Schiedsrichter, die nicht auf Vorschlag der Verbände, sondern mit Blick auf die Wahrung der Interessen der Athleten oder als Unabhängige ausgewählt werden, liegt es lediglich in der Beurteilung der verbandsnahen Mehrheit der ICAS-Mitglieder, ob diese Kriterien erfüllt sind.’ Ibid., at II.3.b)bb)(3)aaa)a-1).

  150. 150.

    ‘Ein paritätischer Einfluss der Streitbeteiligten auf die Besetzung des Schiedsgerichts, der dessen Überparteilichkeit sicherte [references ommitted] ist damit nicht gegeben.’ Ibid.

  151. 151.

    ‘Dieser strukturelle Mangel beeinträchtigt die Neutralität des Schiedsgerichts unabhängig davon, ob die konkret in die Liste aufgenommenen Personen einem Verband in einer Weise nahestehen, welche die Möglichkeit eröffnen könnte, sie abzulehnen; auch bei persönlicher Integrität der in die Liste aufgenommenen Personen wird die Gefahr begründet, dass diese der Sichtweise der Verbände näher stehen als derjenigen der Athleten.’ Ibid.

  152. 152.

    ‘Das Übergewicht der Verbände wird nicht dadurch kompensiert, dass die Schiedsrichterliste mindestens 150 Personen umfassen muss (vgl. S13 Abs. 2), da die Gefahr der Verbandsnähe bei jeder einzelnen Person besteht.’ Ibid.

  153. 153.

    ‘Schließlich trägt auch die Erwägung der Beklagten zu 2. nicht, wegen des Mangels an Organisiertheit der Athleten sei deren Beteiligung an der Erstellung der Schiedsrichterliste nicht möglich. Sollten tatsächlich keine praktikablen Möglichkeiten gefunden werden, die Athleten zu beteiligen, so käme zumindest in Betracht, Athleten bei entsprechenden Streitigkeiten von der Notwendigkeit zu entbinden, einen Schiedsrichter aus der Liste zu wählen, und ihnen die Möglichkeit zu eröffnen, einen anderen Schiedsrichter—gegebenenfalls unter Berücksichtigung abstrakter Qualifikationsmerkmale—zu benennen.’ Ibid., at II.3.b)bb)(3)bbb).

  154. 154.

    Yi 2006, p. 318.

  155. 155.

    See CAS statement on the OLG’s Pechstein ruling http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_statement_ENGLISH.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  156. 156.

    See the list and the curriculum vitae of current ICAS members http://www.tas-cas.org/en/icas/members.html. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  157. 157.

    Coming to the same conclusion in 2006, Yi 2006, p. 315.

  158. 158.

    McLaren 2010, p. 310.

  159. 159.

    Ibid., p. 308.

  160. 160.

    Yi 2006, p. 314.

  161. 161.

    See Article 67 of the FIFA Statutes 2015. www.fifa.com/mm/Document/AFFederation/Generic/02/58/14/48/2015FIFAStatutesEN_Neutral.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  162. 162.

    François-Guillaume Lemouton, Le TAS, forcé de se réformer (L’Equipe, 14 April 2015). .

  163. 163.

    OLG München, 15 January 2015, Az. U 1110/14 Kart, at II.3.b)bb)(3)aaa)a-2).

  164. 164.

    ‘Damit können letztlich die Verbände zusätzlichen mittelbaren Einfluss auf das dritte Mitglied des für eine konkrete Streitigkeit zuständigen Kollegiums haben.’ OLG München, 15 January 2015, Az. U 1110/14 Kart, at II.3.b)bb)(3)aaa)a-2).

  165. 165.

    Yi 2006, p. 314.

  166. 166.

    Muresan and Korff 2014, pp. 208–210; Downie 2011, pp. 334–344.

References

  • Akman P (2009a) Searching for the long-lost soul of article 82 EC. Oxford J Legal Stud 29:267–303

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Akman P (2009b) Exploitative abuse in article 82 EC: back to basics? Cambridge Yearbook Eur Legal Stud 11:165–188

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ansley C (1995) International athletic dispute resolution: tarnishing the Olympic dream. Arizona J Int Comp Law 12:277–302

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 29:598–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Bersheda T (2009) Les clauses d’arbitrage statutaires en droit suisse. ASA Bull 27:691–716

    Google Scholar 

  • Besson S (2006) Arbitration and human rights. ASA Bull 24:395–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackshaw I (2003) The Court of Arbitration for Sport: an international forum for settling disputes effectively ‘within the family of sport’. Entertain Law 2:61–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Coccia M (2013) International sports justice: the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Eur Sports Law Policy Bull 2013:23–76

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 91–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Demaine LJ, Hensler DR (2004) ‘Volunteering’ to arbitrate through predispute arbitration clause: the average consumer’s experience. Law Contemp Prob 67:55–74

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 12:315–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Duval A (2013) Lex sportiva: a playground for transnational law. Eur Law J 19:822–842

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Evans DS, Padilla AJ (2005) Excessive prices: using economics to define administrable legal rules. J Comp Law Econ 1:97–122

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 18:997–1024

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas U (2009) International Sportschiedsgerichtsbarkeit und EMRK. Zeitschrift für Schiedsverfahren 7:73–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas U (2012) Role and application of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in CAS procedures. International Sports Law Review 12:43–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas H (2014) Zwangsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit im Sport und EMRK. ASA Bull 32:707–734

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarrosson C (2001) Les frontières de l’arbitrage. Revue de l’Arbitrage 1:5–41

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann-Kohler G ‘Preface’ to Rigozzi A (2005) L’arbitrage international en matière de sport. Bruylant, L.G.D.J., Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Bâle

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 7:399–419

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 28:137–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Latty F (2007) Lex sportiva: recherche sur le droit transnational. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 13:60–70

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Maisonneuve M (2011) L’arbitrage des litiges sportifs. L.G.D.J, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavromati D (2011) Selected issues related to CAS jurisdiction in the light of the jurisprudence of the Swiss Supreme Court. CAS/TAS Bull 2011:31–40

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • McLaren RH (2001) The Court of Arbitration for Sport: an independent arena for the world’s sports disputes. Valparaiso Univ Law Rev 35:379–405

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaren RH (2010) Twenty-five years of the Court of Arbitration for sport: a look in the rear-view mirror. Marquette Sports Law Rev 20:305–333

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 159–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitten MJ, Opie H (2010) Sports law: implications for the development of international comparative and national law and global dispute resolution. Tulane Law Review 85:269–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Moses ML (2014) Challenges for the future: the diminishing role of consent in arbitration. www.ssrn.com/abstract=2479426. Accessed 15 July 2015

  • Motta M, Streel A de (2007) Excessive Pricing in competition law: never say never. In: The pros and cons of high prices. Konkurrensverket, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Muresan R and Korff N (2014) Sportschiedsgerichtsbarkeit: Wie weiter nach dem ‘Pechstein Urteil’ des Landgerichts München?, Causa Sport 199–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Nafziger JAR (2002) Dispute resolution in the arena of international sports competition? Am J Comp Law 50:161–179

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nazzini R (2011) The foundations of European competition law: the objective and principles of Article 102. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 39:12–20

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donoghue R, Padilla AJ (2013) The law and economics of Article 102 TFEU, 2nd edn. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulsson J (1993) Arbitration of international sports disputes. Arbitr Int 9:359–369

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Ravjani A (2010) The Court of Arbitration for Sport: a subtle form of international delegation. CAS/TAS Bull 2010(1):13–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeb M (ed) (1998) Digest of CAS awards 1986-1998. Staempfli Editions, Berne

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeb M (ed) (2004) Digest of CAS awards 2001-2003. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 5:63–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigozzi A (2005) L’arbitrage international en matière de sport. D.J., Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Bâle

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigozzi A (2010) Challenging awards of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. J Int Dispute Settl 1:217–265

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rigozzi A (2013) L’importance du droit suisse de l’arbitrage dans la résolution des litiges sportifs internationaux. Zeitschrift fur Schweizerisches Recht 132:301–325

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 59–95

    Google Scholar 

  • de la Rochefoucauld E (2011) L’indépendance des arbitres devant le TAS. CAS/TAS Bull 2011(2):27–34

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Roma E (2011) Mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts and the need for meaningful judicial review. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & Law 12:519–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Romano VC (2014) Nullita di clausole compromissorie negli arbitrati sportivi per squilibrio strutturale tra i contraenti. Diritto del Commercio Internazionale 28:543–548

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 20:59–96

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 13:105–115

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Weston MA (2009) Doping control, mandatory arbitration, and process dangers for accused athletes in international sports. Pepperdine Dispute Resolut Law J 10:5–50

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 6:289–341

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 483–537

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Antoine Duval & Ben Van Rompuy

Authors
  1. Antoine Duval
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ben Van Rompuy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ben Van Rompuy .

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

Duval, A., Van Rompuy, B. (2016). Protecting Athletes’ Right to a Fair Trial Through EU Competition Law: The Pechstein Case. 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_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-088-6_11

  • 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)