Swiss Federal Supreme Court judgments in sports-related cases from 2024
A Summary of the key Swiss Federal Supreme Court judgments published in 2024
In 2024, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (SFT) issued, once again, numerous judgments in motions against awards rendered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). As occurs each year, most of the pleas involved grievances of due process and violations of a parties’ right to be heard, but also quite common this year were violations of public policy.
The SFT did not uphold any of the challenges in 2024, reiterating the high admissibility threshold, in particular, casesrelated to the ‘effet de surprise’ (see also my note on 4A_112/2024). Generally, the SFT confirmed its view that CAS Panels generally enjoy broad powers in the assessment of the evidence under Art. R44.1 (see my note on 4A_598/2023) as well as their power of review under Art. R57 CAS Code (see my note on 4A_232/2024). Moreover, pleas of appellatory nature are generally inadmissible (see my notes on 4A_264/2024 and 4_456/2023) and the parties must raise any procedural irregularities / violations of the right to be heard in an explicit manner as soon as they arise, all the more after the 2021 modification of Art. 182 paragraph 2 of the Swiss Private International Law Act, PILA (see my note on 4A_598/2023). Importantly, the right to be heard does not include as such a right to cross-examine a witness who filed written statements (see my note on 4A_600/2023). Alleged violations of the equality of the parties must relate to the CAS proceedings and not challenges under e.g. the WADA rules (see my note on 4A_442/2023).
Furthermore, the SFT re-confirmed its very strict view of violation of public policy but also the notion of ‘abuse of rights’ in employment claims based on mandatory labour law in football (see my note on 4A_134/2024). There is, in principle, no violation of public policy in case of the filing of the statement of appeal by email only (see my note on 4A_346/2024) or in case of delays to issue the CAS Award (to the extent that they can be justified by the complexity of the proceedings and the parties’ requests) (see my note on 4A_442/2023). CAS Panels generally enjoy a wide discretion in assessing and dermining the amount of a contractual penalty if the latter is found to be excessive (see my note on 4A_456/2023) but also in reviewing disciplinary sanctions in sports proceedings (see my note on 4A_ 504/2023). What is more, requests for joinder and intervention under the CAS Code are not ‘essential rules’ falling within the scope of public policy (see my note on 4A_154/2023).
The SFT also confirmed its view that violations of the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) cannot be directly invoked pending the Caster Semenya case before the ECHR Grand Chamber (see also my note on 4A_448/2023). Moreover, there is no public policy violation if a panel imposes doping sanction on a minor athlete, to the extent that a different treatment depending on age would endanger the fight against doping (see my notes on 4A_564/2023 and the Valieva case 4A_136/2024).
In terms of jurisdiction, the SFT reiterated that CAS jurisdiction and arbitrability cannot be invoked in bad faith, e.g., if said jurisdiction was accepted in other proceedings, see my note on the Valieva case 4A_136/2024). What is more, the SFT clarified the interpretation principles of jurisdiction clauses in international football disputes, especially where FIFA’s regulations allow parties to opt out of FIFA and CAS jurisdiction for labor law issues (see my note on 4A_430/2023).
Decision to reduce a contractual penalty in a football-related dispute and right to be heard
SFT Judgment 4A_456/2023 of 11 December 2023, motion to set aside CAS 2022/8754
This SFT judgment dealt with a legal dispute between a football club (the Club) and a football player (the Player) over a contractual penalty, after the Club unilaterally terminated the player’s contract in February 2021. The employment contract included a salary of USD 4,000, a signing fee of USD 50,000, and a penalty of USD 2,000,000 in the event of a breach. The Player successfully claimed compensation before the FIFA DRC, and the CAS reduced the penalty to USD 500,000 on appeal by the Club.
The CAS had argued that the penalty was valid but excessive, reducing it based on the Player’s salary and Swiss law (Article 163 para. 1 SCO). The Club then filed a motion to the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT), arguing a violation of its right to be heard (Article 190 para. 2 d PILA). Specifically, the Club claimed that the CAS had not justified its decision to reduce the penalty or explained how it reached its conclusion.
The SFT rejected the Club’s claims, ruling that the CAS had considered the arguments raised and that it was not required to respond to every point in detail. The SFT also dismissed the Club’s argument that the penalty should be reduced to six months’ salary (USD 24,000), stating it was an inadmissible criticism of appellatory nature. Ultimately, the SFT reinforced the principle that the right to be heard ensures participation in the decision-making process, but not necessarily a correct decision.
Pleas of inequality of the parties and delay to issue the CAS Award in a doping-related case
SFT Judgment 4A_442/2023, judgment of 11 January 2024, motion to set aside CAS 2021/A/8263 and CAS 2021/A/8381
In this doping case involving a Russian wrestler, the athlete’s sample initially tested negative in 2015 but was re-examined in 2020 at WADA’s request, showing traces of a prohibited anabolic steroid. The Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) but the CAS suspended the Athlete for four years in appeal.
In the subsequent SFT judgment, the SFT scrutinized the time limits for CAS awards, generally set at three months under the CAS Code. In this case, the CAS took nine months to issue the award after receiving the case file, including multiple extensions. The SFT noted that delays could violate procedural public policy under certain conditions but concluded that the overall circumstances of the case—including the complexity of consolidating proceedings and the Athlete’s own requests for extensions—meant that the delay was not excessive.
The SFT also addressed the athlete’s claim of inequality of the parties due to difficulties in finding a scientific expert. Interestingly, this was deemed outside the scope of the appeal as the Athlete did not criticize the CAS proceedings as such but rather his challenges under WADA rules. The SFT dismissed this claim, noting that the athlete eventually found experts.
In conclusion, while not a landmark case, the decision highlights the SFT’s scrutiny of time limits for CAS awards and emphasizes that the reasonableness of delays must be assessed in the context of the overall case, not just the duration of proceedings.
European Convention of Human Rights invoked directly before the Swiss Federal Tribunal after the Semenya judgment
SFT Judgment 4A_488/2023 of 23 January 2024, motion to set aside CAS 2022/A/8653
In this doping-related case, a Russian female triathlete was disciplined by her international federation for failing to report the use a banned substance found in her samples from 2014 and 2015. After a four-year suspension imposed by the CAS Anti-Doping Division in 2022, the athlete sought to overturn the decision, citing human rights violations and invoking Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
In this post-Semenya judgment, the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) ruled that the Semenya judgment was not binding on the SFT because the case was still pending before the ECHR Grand Chamber, therefore declining to modify its established case law. The SFT also dismissed the Athlete’s plea that CAS lacked institutional independence, reaffirming its support for the CAS based on previous rulings, including the Mutu & Pechstein case.
Furthermore, the Athlete argued a violation of her right to be heard for not being able to access or test three contested urine samples from 2014 and 2015, which had been destroyed. This was dismissed to the extent that, following the destruction of the samples, it was naturally impossible to provide evidence in the arbitration proceedings. What is more, the argument that WADA unlawfully prevented the Athlete from obtaining the evidence was deemed inadmissible to the extent that it was directed against one of the opposing parties and not the panel. Finally, the SFT found no violation of public policy, concluding that the Athlete’s claims did not demonstrate a breach of fundamental procedural principles.
This judgment is significant as the first post-Semenya case in which the SFT addressed Article 13 ECHR directly, reinforcing that it was not yet ready to integrate such arguments into its case law pending the ECHR Grand Chamber’s final decision. The SFT also emphasized the narrow scope of Article 190(2)(d) PILA, which does not address factual disputes or appeals.
Proportionality of a doping sanction imposed on a minor athlete and violation of public policy
SFT Judgment 4A_564/2023 of 26 January 2024, motion to set aside TAS 2023/A/9466 and TAS 2023/A/9625
In this case, a taekwondo athlete – a minor at the time of the violation – tested positive for furosemide, a banned masking agent, during an in-competition test. Following a two-year first-instance decision, the athlete was subsequently banned for four years by the CAS.
In his motion to the SFT, the athlete argued that the four-year sanction was disproportionate, particularly because he was only 17 years old at the time of the violation, and discriminatory as he should not be sanctioned in the same way as an adult athlete, given his inexperience with doping controls.
The SFT clarified that it could only intervene in cases where a decision violated public policy as to its result and further noted the sanction should be manifestly unjust or shockingly inequitable. In this case, the SFT upheld the CAS decision, which found that the athlete had intentionally ingested the substance to aid weight loss for competition, ignoring that it was prohibited. As such, the athlete’s young age and inexperience did not excuse him from verifying the substances he ingested, particularly given his prior international competition experience.
The SFT also dismissed the discrimination argument, stating that anti-doping rules apply equally to all athletes, regardless of age, and there was no compelling reason to treat the minor athlete differently from adults. The SFT concluded that the athlete’s criticisms were not sufficient to overturn the decision, and the four-year sanction was neither disproportionate nor discriminatory.
Non-timely filing of the statement of appeal due to non-established technical problems and excessive formalism
In 4A_254/2023 of 12 June 2023, a doping-related sanction was issued by the disciplinary body of the International Fencing Federation (FIE) on 31 January 2023. The athlete’s counsel filed the statement of appeal within the 21-day time limit by email only, requesting at the same time the “Case Registration Form” in order to upload the statement via the CAS e-filing platform. On the last day of the time limit, the counsel uploaded the submission on the e-filing platform, noticing that the platform was particularly slow but without receiving an error notification from the system. Several days later, the CAS informed the athlete that the statement of appeal was filed late. In the subsequent challenge proceedings, the SFT confirmed that the parties uploading their statement of appeal on the e-filing platform bear the burden to establish the valid filing of their submissions, whereas the inadmissibility for non-timely filing cannot amount to excessive formalism (cf also my note on 4A_692/2016).
Conflict of interests in sports administration and the (high) threshold to establish violation of public policy in sports disciplinary sanctions
SFT Judgment 4A_504/2023 of 22 February 2024, motion to set aside CAS 2022/A/9297
This case involved Paolo Barelli, the President of the Italian Swimming Federation, former President of European Aquatics (LEN) from 2012 to 2022, and former Vice-President of World Aquatics (formerly FINA) from 2017 to 2021. In March 2021, while serving as LEN President, Barelli signed a contract with Italy to host the 2022 European Aquatics Championships, requiring Italy to pay EUR 3 Mio. However, in May 2021, an addendum to the contract was signed, reducing the payment due to Covid-19 restrictions, and increasing Italy’s commercialization rights from 50% to 60%.
Both LEN and FINA became aware of this arrangement, and FINA launched proceedings against Barelli for conflicts of interest, imposing a one-year sanction. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld this sanction on appeal.
Barelli then challenged the decision before the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT), arguing that FINA’s actions were contradictory and violated public policy, as FIFA had allowed him to hold these roles for nearly a decade and had given him a tacit approval to sign the addendum with Italy.
The SFT rejected this argument, noting that while FINA had permitted him to hold both positions, it did not give him the right to act in Italy’s interests. The SFT also dismissed a claim regarding a violation of personality rights, emphasizing that, as found in the Platini judgment, it only reviews decisions in sports disciplinary cases if the sanction is manifestly unjust.
Football-related labour law disputes of ‘international dimension’ and jurisdiction of state courts
SFT Judgment 4A_430/2023 of 23 February 2024, motion to set aside CAS 2022/A/8571
In August 2020, a Hungarian football club (the “Club”) signed a contract with a Russian football player (the “Player”), which included an arbitration clause specifying that disputes could be resolved through negotiation, and if those failed, by either the Hungarian state courts or FIFA’s authority for labor disputes, or through the Sports Standing Arbitration Court for other disputes under Hungarian Sports Law.
When a dispute arose regarding unpaid wages, the Player terminated his contract and filed a claim before FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). The FIFA DRC partially upheld the Player’s claim, ordering the Club to pay various amounts. On appeal to the CAS, the Sole Arbitrator ruled that the CAS did not have jurisdiction over the matter, and that the dispute should have been brought before Hungarian state courts.
The SFT Court confirmed the interpretation of the arbitration clause by the CAS, as the clause clearly distinguished between labor law disputes (which should go to state courts) and other disputes (which could be resolved through FIFA and then CAS). The SFT rejected the Player’s argument that the clause allowed for “alternative jurisdiction” between state courts and FIFA DRC, affirming that this interpretation was not supported by the CAS award.
This case is notable for clarifying the interpretation of jurisdiction clauses in international disputes, especially where FIFA’s regulations allow parties to opt out of FIFA and CAS jurisdiction for labor law issues. The SFT emphasized that the parties’ intent to exclude state courts from jurisdiction must be clear and referenced a similar case (4A_2/2023), where the SFT confirmed the jurisdiction of Hungarian state courts over labor law disputes in a similar context.
Importance of clear evidence in arbitration proceedings and limited scope of review of alleged procedural violations by the SFT
SFT Judgment 4A_16/2024 of 26 June 2024, motion to set aside CAS 2023/A/9876
This case involved a dispute between a Turkish football club (the “Club”) and a Lithuanian player (the “Player”) regarding disciplinary sanctions imposed by FIFA on the Club that was confirmed by the CAS.
In the SFT challenge, the Club raised a violation of its right to be heard and a violation of public policy, alleging that the CAS award had falsely accused it of producing a forged document. Both arguments were swiftly dismissed by the SFT based on the elements of the file.
This judgment highlights the importance of clear evidence in arbitration proceedings and the limited scope for challenging arbitration awards based on alleged procedural violations or public policy concerns.
Requests for joinder and intervention under the CAS Code are not ‘essential rules’ falling within the scope of public policy
SFT Judgment 4A_154/2024 of 10 June 2024, motion to set aside the CAS Award TAS 2023/A/10194
The case involved four Peruvian football clubs: Club C, which competed in the first division, and Clubs A, B, and D, which were relegated to the second division. Following investigation, the PFF imposed a financial penalty and a four-point deduction for the 2023 season on Club C for failing to meet its financial obligations. Club C appealed the decision, as did Clubs A and D; the latter Clubs arguing that the sanction should apply to the 2022 season, which would have kept them in the first division. PFF upheld the sanction, but adjusted it to apply to the 2022 season, prompting appeals to CAS from Club C and Club B. Club A requested to intervene in the CAS proceedings, but the Sole Arbitrator dismissed this request.
Club A then sought to annul the CAS decision refusing its intervention request before the SFT. The SFT confirmed that a decision on intervention is not just a procedural order, but a challengeable decision, citing previous jurisprudence (cf. SFT 4A_416/2020). Moreover, the SFT held that the decision on intervention did not fall within the jurisdictional scope of Art. 190(2)(b) of PILA, but rather public policy under Art. 190(2)(e) PILA. Most importantly, however, the SFT referenced another recent judgment whereby it found that Art. 41.4 was not an essential rule that would lead to the violation of public policy (4A_340/2023, at 6.4).
The SFT further dismissed Club A’s argument that its right to be heard had been violated as being largely appellatory and confirmed the CAS’ finding that the appellant should have filed a proper appeal and not an intervention request. Finally, the SFT held that the coherence of the CAS reasoning was beyond the SFT scope of review. (NB: see also the linked cases 4A_156/2024, 4A_180/2024 and 4A_182/2024 of 10 June 2024).
On the limited scope of the ‘effet de surprise’ – the case of the former President of the European Weightlifting Federation Hasan Akkus
SFT Judgment 4A_112/2024 of 3 July 2024, motion to set aside CAS 2023/A/9398 and CAS 2023/A/9493
This judgment relates to the former President of the European Weightlifting Federation (EWF) Hasan Akkus (A), who was initially sanctioned for anti-doping violations by the CAS Anti-Doping Division (ADD) and subsequently cleared by the CAS in appeal. A was accused by the IWF of backdating a document from January 2013 to November 2012 to avoid sanctions for doping violations of approximately 20 Turkish weightlifters and the Turkish Weightlifting Federation (TWF).
The IWF then sought to have the CAS award set aside by the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT), claiming a violation of its right to be heard. The SFT quickly dismissed the appeal and ruled that a new piece of evidence submitted for the first time before the SFT was inadmissible under Article 99(1) of the Swiss Federal Tribunal Act (LTF).
Regarding A’s resignation as EWF president, the SFT found that the exact date of his resignation was not crucial. It also ruled that the falsification of the document was immaterial, as it occurred after A had left his position with the EWF.
The SFT further rejected the IWF’s argument of “effet de surprise” concerning the scope of the anti-doping regulations, stating that the issue of whether the regulations applied after A’s resignation was a central point in the case, and the CAS was justified in thoroughly examining it. Lastly, the SFT concluded that the CAS’s reference to Article 7.7 of the IWF Anti-Doping Regulations was not the foundation of its decision, but merely supported the conclusion that the regulations did not apply to former officials like A.
Very restrictive notion of ‘abuse of rights’ in employment claims based on mandatory labour law in football
SFT Judgment 4A_134/2024 of 28 June 2024, motion to set aside CAS 2023/A/9574
In this case, a dispute arose from an agreement between a Turkish Club and a Brasilian Player to terminate their employment contract prematurely in order to facilitate the Player’s transfer to another club. The Club initially obtained a favorable decision from the FIFA DRC but lost in appeal to the CAS, as the Sole Arbitrator essentially found that the Club had not proven damages.
More specifically, the Sole Arbitrator awarded the Player’s counterclaims on the grounds that the termination agreement was null and void due to a breach of mandatory law (Art. 341 para. 1 CO), as it did not provide for balanced mutual concessions and lacked reciprocity. At the same time, the Sole Arbitrator rejected the Club’s objection that the Player had acted in abuse of rights by subsequently invoking the nullity of the agreement despite his concessions and the payment of instalments. Accordingly, it was decided that the Club should pay outstanding wages due to the nullity of the cancellation agreement and repay the partial payments to the Player for unjust enrichment.
In the subsequent motion to set aside the CAS Award, the Club alleged that the Sole Arbitrator had not recognized the player’s conduct as an abuse of rights (venire contra factum proprium), amounting to a violation of public policy.
The SFT reiterated the very restrictive notion of abuse of rights falling within the scope of public policy, which is possible for an employer only if special circumstances exist (BGE 131 III 439 E. 5.1 with references), in view of the very limited view of labor law claims based on mandatory law, the SFT could not establish – on the basis of the binding findings in the award – that the Sole Arbitrator granted legal protection to abusive conduct by the Player and therefore could not annul the award for violation of public policy.
Proportionality of a doping sanction imposed on a minor athlete – the SFT Judgment in the case of Kamila Valieva
SFT Judgment 4A_136/2024 of 5 September 2024, motion to set aside CAS 2023/A/9451, CAS 2023/A/9455 and CAS 2023/A/9456
The Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) reviewed the case of Russian figure skater Kamilla Valieva, who was disqualified from the 2022 Beijing Olympics after testing positive for the banned substance trimetazidine. The CAS had earlier imposed a four-year ineligibility period starting from December 25, 2021, and disqualified all results since that date. The CAS found that Valieva could not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the violation was unintentional or explain the source of the banned substance, dismissing her claims of sabotage, contamination, or ingestion via a dessert. Despite her status as a minor, the CAS applied the same standards for intentional anti-doping rule violations and noted that further protection for young athletes would require changes to the WADA Code.
The SFT addressed Valieva’s challenges to the CAS’s jurisdiction and the arbitrability of the case. It rejected her claims, noting that the CAS had jurisdiction based on applicable regulations for international-level athletes and she had already accepted such jurisdiction in CAS Ad Hoc proceedings that dealt with her provisional suspension (see my note here). The SFT also held that the dispute remained arbitrable even though Russian law incorporated WADA’s rules, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a unified anti-doping framework.
Valieva argued that her young age warranted a less severe sanction under public policy. The SFT dismissed this, stating that lowering sanctions solely due to age would undermine anti-doping efforts. Additionally, the SFT found no merit in her grievance about excessive media coverage by the CAS, as the publicity complied with WADA rules given the high-profile nature of the case during the Olympics.
No excessive formalism in case of filing the statement of appeal at the CAS only by email
SFT Judgment 4A_346/2024 of 2 September 2024, motion to set aside CAS Decision of 15 May 2024
Following a FIFA DRC decision ordering a Turkish professional football Club to pay unpaid salaries to a player on 4 April 2024, the Club filed a statement of appeal to the CAS by email on 3 May 2024. Several days later, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the email and called attention to Art. R31 of the CAS Code. The Club confirmed that it had sent its statement of appeal by post on 6 May 2024, the date on which it had allegedly delivered its submission in person to a company called C.
However, CAS determined the decisive dispatch date to be May 13, 2024, based on DHL’s shipment tracking. This fell outside the deadline set by Art. R31 of the CAS Code. Consequently, CAS declined to hear the case due to the late filing of the appeal.
Before the SFT, the Club argued that CAS had committed excessive formalism, claiming Art. R31 para. 3 only required the appeal to be sent “by post” without specifying the need for a traceable system. The SFT dismissed this argument and noted that failing to meet formal requirements for filing appeals does not constitute a formal denial of justice (Art. 190(2) c PILA). The SFT emphasized that compliance with Art. R31 para. 3 is an admissibility condition, not a mere procedural formality and as such the CAS did not commit excessive formalism by not accepting the appeal.
Evidence submitted late pursuant to Art. R44.1 of the CAS Code and right to be heard
SFT Judgment 4A_598/2023, of 2 September 2024, motion against the CAS Award CAS 2021/O/7669
A Colombian football Club signed an exclusive representation agreement with an Agency in Brasil for the transfer of a football Player, and signed a contract providing for the payment of a sum depending on the transfer fee of the player.
The Agency subsequently filed a request for arbitration with the CAS requesting the payment of the agreed amount. The Sole Arbitrator considered that it was not necessary to hold a hearing but ordered a new round of submissions and requested the Agency to provide documents showing the role played in the negotiations. The Agency provided its written statements of the Player, while the Club contested the admissibility of such written statement. The Sole Arbitrator upheld the claim and ordered the Club to pay the agreed amount plus interest, considering that the agency had indeed assisted the Club in the negotiations.
In its challenge before the SFT, the Club alleged a violation of its right to be heard, holding that the CAS had not offered the possibility to cross-examine the player and failed to decide on the requested nullity of the witness statement that was provided late (cf. also 4A_600/2023). However, the SFT swiftly dismissed this argument as the challenged award confirmed that such evidence was validly submitted under Art. R44.1 of the CAS Code.
Right to be heard does not include a right to cross-examine a witnesses who provided written statement
SFT Judgment 4A_600/2023 of 2 September 2024, motion to set aside CAS 2021/O/7670
In this case, an Agency sought a commission for assisting a football Club in its negotiations for the transfer of a football Player to another football club. In the CAS proceedings, the Sole Arbitrator decided not to hold a hearing but to have a second round of submission, then invited the Agency to submit the documents that would establish the role played in the negotiations for the transfer. The Agency filed its second submissions and a written statement of the Player, which was contested by the Club as inadmissible. The Sole Arbitrator upheld the claim and the Club brought a challenge before the SFT for violation of its right to be heard, for not allowing it to cross-examine the Player.
The SFT discarded this argument, confirming that the Club had the possibility to express itself on the content of the witness statement. It could also have filed its written submissions with a list of additional questions for the Player during the second round of submissions, but only requested the inadmissibility of the witness statement. Other elements that were considered included the fact that the Club explicitly requested the CAS not to hold a hearing in the end of the second round of submissions, and signed the Order of Procedure without reservations. Most importantly, the SFT reiterated that Art. 182 paragraph 3 PILA does not grand the right to ask questions to the witnesses who provide written statements (4A_199/2014 at 6.2.3).
De novo review and wide powers in the assesment of the evidence by the CAS in appeal.
SFT Judgment 4A_232/2024 of 3 October 2024, motion to set aside CAS 2022/A/9157
This case involved a dispute between a football club (Club A), a player, and another club (Club C) regarding the validity of a contract and the authenticity of the player’s signature. The FIFA Tribunal and the CAS annulled the contract after finding the signature invalid, dismissing the graphological evidence presented as being insufficient.
Club A challenged the CAS award before the SFT, claiming a violation of its right to be heard and alleging bad faith by the player and Club C in opposing the graphological analysis. The SFT dismissed these claims, noting that the respondents’ conduct did not constitute bad faith and affirmed the broad authority of the CAS under Article R57 of the CAS Code. The SFT also upheld the Panel’s evaluation of evidence, including its conclusion that the disputed signatures were not authentic.
The case underscores the significance of robust evidence evaluation in sports arbitration, particularly in contractual disputes, and reaffirms the wide autonomy of the CAS panels in fact-finding and applying legal principles.
Inadmissible criticisms of appellatory nature – the challenge of the IOC Decision to withdraw its recognition of the International Boxing Association.
SFT Judgment 4A_264/2024 of 12 September 2024, motion to set aside CAS 2023/A/9757
This is the SFT judgment in the motion to set aside the CAS Award that confirmed IOC decision to withdraw its recognition of the International Boxing Association (IBA) as an Olympic federation and to ban IBA from the next version of the Olympic Games (in Los Angeles, 2028) but to keep boxing as a discipline during the Paris Olympics 2024 in order to protect the athletes’ interests. The IBA, previously recognized by the IOC as the governing body for international boxing, faced allegations of corruption and governance issues, particularly after the 2016 Rio Olympics. Investigations revealed serious governance, financial, and ethical concerns and, despite attempts to address these, the IOC suspended its recognition in June 2023.
Before the SFT, the IBA invoked procedural errors, including the violation of its right to be heard. In essence, the SFT dismissed the grievances as being largely inadmissible criticisms of appellatory nature but also holding that the IBA’s arguments were duly considered and implicitly – if not explicitly – discarded by the CAS Panel.
The only interesting remark in this case was that the parties had signed the Order of Procedure opting for the 12th Chapter of the PILA (governing international arbitration and providing for a more limited review of the arbitral award), even though the arbitration was domestic (as both parties were based in Switzerland.
