Bulletin TAS CAS Bulletin 2016/2 TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT/COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT __________________________________________________________________ Bulletin TAS CAS Bulletin 2016/2 Lausanne 2016 Table des matières/Table of Contents Message du Secrétaire Général du TAS/Message from the CAS Secretary General ………….4 Articles et commentaires/Articles and Commentaries………………………………………..6 Application of the 2015 WADA Code through the example of a recent CAS Award (Sharapova v. ITF) Despina Mavromati……………………………………………………………………….7 Délais, notifications et autres prescriptions de forme importantes devant le TAS Pauline Pellaux……………………………………………………………………………14 Jurisprudence majeure/Leading Cases………………………………………………………..28 CAS 2014/A/3536 Racing Club Asociación Civil v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) 5 May 2015………………………………………………………………………………..29 CAS 2015/A/3903 Club Samsunspor v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) 4 May 2015………………………………………………………………………………..34 CAS 2015/A/4162 Liga Deportiva Alajuelense v. Fédération Internationale de Football Associations (FIFA) 3 February 2016…………………………………………………………………………...38 TAS 2015/A/4178 Zohran Ludovic Bassong & RSC Anderlecht c. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) 2 février 2016……………………………………………………………………………...43 CAS 2015/A/4189 British Swimming, Adam Peaty, Francesca Halsall, Jemma Lowe and Chris Walker-Hebborn v. Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) 17 March 2016…………………………………………………………………………….46 CAS 2015/A/4208 Horse Sport Ireland (HIS) & Cian O’Connor v. Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) 15 July 2016 (operative part of 4 January 2016)…………………………………………....50 TAS 2015/A/4229 Fovu Club de Baham c. Canon Sportif de Yaoundé 1er juillet 2016…………………………………………………………………………….54 CAS 2015/A/4233 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Martin Johnsrud Sundby & Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS) 11 July 2016……………………………………………………………………………….58 CAS 2015/A/4279 David Martin Nakhid v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) 18 January 2016 (operative part of 14 December 2015)…………………………………....62 CAS 2016/A/4439 Tomasz Hamerlak v. International Paralympic Committee (IPC) 4 July 2016………………………………………………………………………………..67 Arbitration CAS 2016/A/4643 Maria Sharapova v. International Tennis Federation (ITF) 30 September 2016……………………………………………………………………….71 CAS 2016/O/4684 Russian Olympic Committee (ROC), Lyukman Adams et al. v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) 10 October 2016 (operative part of 21 July 2016)………………………………………...75 CAS 2016/A/4745 Russian Paralympic Committee (RPC) v. International Paralympic Committee (IPC) 30 August 2016 (operative part of 23 August 2016)………………………………………80 Jugements du Tribunal Fédéral/Judgements of the Federal Tribunal………………………...85 Judgement of the Swiss Federal Tribunal 4A_246/2014 15 July 2015 A. SA. (Appellant) v. B., C., et al. (Respondent)…………………………………………..86 Judgment of the Swiss Federal Tribunal 4A_222/2015 18 January 2016 X. (Appellant) v. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) & World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) (Respondents)………………………………………………………….91 Judgement of the Swiss Federal Tribunal 4A_510/2015 8 March 2016 X. (Appellant) v. Y. (Respondent)………………………………………………………...96 Informations diverses/Miscellanous………………………………………………………...100 Publications récentes relatives au TAS/Recent publications related to CAS ……………...101 Message from the CAS Secretary General With more than 600 procedures registered by Sports-related Arbitration. The changes have the CAS – a figure never reached so far -, the been made, as a matter of clarification, in creation for the first time of a CAS Anti- order to codify the existing practice of the Doping Division (CAS ADD) on the Court. The most important amendment is at occasion of the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (13 Article R32 (filing of written submissions, cases registered), alongside the “classic” CAS compliance with the time limits). The ICAS ad hoc Division (28 cases registered), 2016 is has also decided to review the table of fees a record year for the CAS in many aspects. for arbitrators and has increased the basic The number of mediation procedures also hourly fee from CHF 250.- to CHF 300.-, increased in 2016 with a total of 10 noting that the last increase occurred 12 years mediations registered. ago. All amended rules are applicable to new cases filed at the CAS on or after 1 January In order to maintain an open and active list 2017. of CAS members, and also to slightly increase it due to the current workload, 24 new CAS Regarding the “leading cases” selected for arbitrators and 2 new mediators have been this issue, if they mostly remain football- appointed by the ICAS. related, some relevant doping cases have been included, at a time when the number of This year, the International Council of procedures related to doping at CAS is Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) was also pleased regularly increasing following the publication to note that the German Federal Tribunal of the so-called McLaren Report (GFT), like the Swiss Federal Tribunal a few commissioned by WADA in relation to years ago, recognized that the CAS was a Russian athletes. genuine arbitration tribunal. Importantly, the GFT emphasized the fact that the arbitration In the area of football, for the first time the clause in favour of CAS does not constitute case Racing Club Asociación Civil v. FIFA an abuse of a dominant position in the sense deals with the issue of bridge transfer. In of German law and that the existence of a both cases Club Samsunspor v. FIFA and mandatory list of arbitrators (constituted by Liga Deportiva Alajuelense v. FIFA, the CAS the ICAS), regardless of its number of panels address the issue of disciplinary “representatives” of federations and of sanction for non-compliance with a FIFA athletes, does not affect the equality of the decision. In Zohran Bassong & RSC parties. Anderlecht c. FIFA, the scope of the exceptions to the principle of the ban of Further to the successful experience of the international transfer of minor players is CAS Anti-doping Division in Rio, the ICAS examined. The case Fovu Club de Baham v. is now working on its regulations to include Canon Sportif de Yaoundé deals with various the International Federations in the CAS issues related to the sanction applicable to a ADD procedure during the Olympic Games club having fielded an ineligible player. 2018 in Pyongchang (South Korea). The Lastly, in David Martin Nakhid v. FIFA, objective is to reduce the number of internal several matters related to the FIFA procedures related to the same facts and the presidential election are analysed. same athletes. The amended CAS ADD Rules will continue to guarantee a double Turning to doping, the case WADA v. Martin degree of jurisdiction. Johnsrud Sundby & FIS addresses the question of the inhalation of a prohibited Still on a regulatory level, the ICAS has substance in excess of the “use threshold” amended a few provisions of the Code of and without a Therapeutic Use Exemption 4 (TUE) whereas the case Tomasz Hamerlak v. Horse Sport Ireland & Cian O’Connor v. IPC contemplates the issue of the FEI, the principles applicable to field of play responsibility and intent of an athlete decisions are examined in the light of specific regarding the use of supplements. The cases and unfortunate facts. ROC, Lyukman Adams et al. v. IAAF and ROC v. IPC - both linked to the Russian With regard to the above-mentioned doping program - are respectively dealing Sharapova case, we are pleased to publish an with the validity of the IAAF rules providing article prepared by Despina Mavromati, for the ineligibility of athletes affiliated to a Counsel to the CAS, entitled “Application of suspended federation to participate in the 2015 WADA Code through the example international competitions and to the validity of a recent CAS Award”. Furthermore, an of the decision of the International interesting analysis on time limits applicable Paralympic Committee to suspend the before the CAS written by Pauline Pellaux, Russian Paralympic Committee. Finally, the Counsel to the CAS, is also included in this well-known Sharapova case (Maria issue. Sharapova v. ITF) is about the length of the sanction applicable to the athlete having used As usual, summaries of the most recent Meldonium. judgements rendered by the Swiss Federal Tribunal in connection with CAS decisions In other sports areas, the case British have been enclosed in this edition. Swimming et al. v. FINA deals with the recognition of a world record despite the I wish you a pleasant reading of this new absence of anti-doping control whereas in edition of the CAS Bulletin. 5 __________________________________________________________________________________ Articles et commentaires Articles and Commentaries 6 ________________________________________________________ Application of the 2015 WADA Code through the example of a recent CAS Award (Sharapova v. ITF) Despina Mavromati* ________________________________________________________ I. Introduction II. The ITF Independent Tribunal Decision III. The CAS Award and the application of the 2015 WADC A. Procedural Issues: Power of Review of the CAS Panel and Applicable Law B. The degree of fault:Qualification of NSF under the 2015 WADC C. Delegation by Athletes of elements of their Anti-Doping obligations and NSF D. Determination of the length of the sanction under Art. 10.5.2 of the 2015 WADC IV. Concluding remarks __________________________________________________________________________