Cofola International 2021. International and National Arbitration – Challenges and Trends of the Present and Future
KapitolaComfortable Satisfaction Before the Court of Arbitration for Sport: Consistency Despite Differences?
Rok vydání: 2021https://doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.P210-8639-2021-13
Abstrakt
The Court of Arbitration for Sport’s privileged position lends considerable authority to its adjudication practice, which gives rise to a number of principles that are subsequently adopted into general applica-tion. One of these principles is the standard of proof referred to as “comfortable satisfaction”. Howe-ver, its application raises several theoretical and practical issues. An analysis of publicly available awards shows that there are different approaches to this standard across arbitral panels, which, in the eyes of theory, considerably affect the process of evidence. This contribution therefore seeks to present these different approaches against the backdrop of an analysis of available awards and academic deba-tes, and to answer the question of whether these differences, translated into practice, cause inconsis-tencies within decision-making practice.
Klíčová slova
Court of Arbitration for Sport; Lex Sportiva; Standard of Proof; Comfortable Satisfaction; Variable Ap-proach; Constant Approach; Consistency.
Reference
Atlanta 1996. Olympic Channel Services S.L. 2021 [online]. [cit. 28. 5. 2021]. Available at: https://olympics.com/en/olympic-games/atlanta-1996
BELL, R. It’s Time to Work Together to Stop Doping in Sports. The Sport Journal [online]. [cit. 28. 5. 2021]. Available at: https://thesportjournal.org/article/its-time-to-work-together-to-stop-doping-in-sports/
BERSAGEL, A. Is There a Stare Decisis Doctrine in the Court of Arbitration for Sport? An Analysis of Published Awards for Anti-Doping Disputes in Track and Field. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 2012, Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 189–213.
BLACKSHAW, I. Towards a ‘Lex Sportiva’. The International Sports Law Journal, 2011, Vol. 11, no. 3–4, pp. 140–144.
CASINI, L. The Making of a Lex Sportiva: The Court of Arbitration for Sport “Der Ernährer”. SSRN [online]. 6. 6. 2010 [cit. 28. 5. 2021]. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1621335&download=yes
CAS Statistics 1986–2020. Court of Arbitration for Sport [online]. [cit. 24. 5. 2021]. Available at: https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_statistics_2020.pdf
Doping Cases at the Olympics. Encyclopaedia Britannica [online]. [cit. 30. 5. 2021]. Available at: https://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/doping-cases-at-the-olympics/
DOWNIE, R. Improving the Performance of Sport’s Ultimate Umpire: Reforming the Governance of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 2011, Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 67–96.
DUVAL, A. Lex Sportiva: A Playground for Transnational Law. European Law Journal, 2013, Vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 822–842. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12067
RIGOZZI, A. and B. QUINN. Evidentiary Issues Before CAS. SSRN [online]. 30. 5. 2014 [cit. 30. 5. 2021]. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2438570
FOSTER, K. Lex Sportiva and Lex Ludica: the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s Jurisprudence. Entertainment and Sports Law Journal [online]. 27. 6. 2016 [cit. 28. 5. 2021]. Available at: https://www.entsportslawjournal.com/article/id/722/
GREENE, P. J. USADA vs. Montgomery: Paving a New Path to Conviction in Olympic Doping Cases. Maine Law Review, 2007, Vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 150–167.
History of the CAS. Court of Arbitration for Sport [online]. [cit. 24. 5. 2021]. Available at: https://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/history-of-the-cas.html
HOLT, R. I. G., I. EROTOKRITOU-MULLIGAN and P. H. SÖNKSEN. The history of doping and growth hormone abuse in sport. Growth Hormone & IGF Research, 2009, Vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 320–326. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ghir.2009.04.009
IOANNIDIS, G. The Influence of Common Law Traditions on the Practice and Procedure Before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). In: DUVAL, A. and A. RIGOZZI (eds.). Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2015. The Hague: T. M. C. ASSER PRESS, 2016, pp. 17–38. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-129-6_2
KAUFMANN-KOHLER, G. Arbitral Precedent: Dream, Necessity or Excuse? Arbitration International, 2007, Vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 357–378. DOI https://doi.org/10.1093/arbitration/23.3.357
ŁUKOMSKI, L. The John Terry Case – An Overlap of Criminal and Disciplinary Proceedings. The International Sports Law Journal, 2012, Vol. 12, no. 3–4, pp. 63–64.
MORGAN, W. J. Fair is Fair, Or Is It?: A Moral Consideration of the Doping Wars in American Sport. Sport in Society, 2006, Vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 177–198. DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/17430430500491256
ROBBINS, L. OLYMPICS; Lower Standard of Proof Angers Athletes and Lawyers. The New York Times [online]. 15. 6. 2004 [cit. 30. 5. 2021]. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/sports/olympics-lower-standard-of-proof-angers-athletes-and-lawyers.html
SOEK, J. The Legal Nature of Doping Law. The International Sports Law Journal, 2002, Vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 2–7.
STRAUBEL, M. Enhancing the Performance of the Doping Court: How the Court of Arbitration for Sport Can Do Its Job Better. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 2005, Vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1203–1272.
TARASTI, L. Interplay Between Doping Sanctions Imposed by a Criminal Court and by a Sport Organization. The International Sports Law Journal, 2007, Vol. 7, no. 3–4, pp. 15–18.
World Anti-Doping Code 2021. World Anti-Doping Agency [online]. [cit. 30. 5. 2021]. Available at: https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2021_wada_code.pdf
ZAKSAITE, S. and H. RADKE. The Interaction of Criminal and Disciplinary Law in Doping-Related Cases. The International Sports Law Journal, 2014, Vol. 14, no. 1–2, pp. 115–127. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-014-0045-5