Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2015 1st Edition by Antoine Duval, Antonio Rigozzi ISBN 9462651299 9789462651296

Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2015 1st Edition by Antoine Duval, Antonio Rigozzi – Ebook PDF Instant Download/Delivery: 9462651299, 9789462651296
Full download Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2015 1st Edition after payment

Product details:

ISBN 10: 9462651299 
ISBN 13: 9789462651296
Author: Antoine Duval, Antonio Rigozzi

The Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration is the first academic publication aiming to offer comprehensive coverage, on a yearly basis, of the most recent and salient developments regarding international sports arbitration, through a combination of general articles and case notes. The present volume covers decisions rendered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and national courts in 2015. It is a must-have for sports lawyers and arbitrators, as well as researchers engaged in this field. It provides in-depth articles on burning issues raised by international sports arbitration, and independent commentaries by esteemed academics and seasoned practitioners on the most important decisions of the CAS (e.g. the Dutee Chand case) and national courts (e.g. the Pechstein and Wilhelmshaven decision rendered by the OLG München and OLG Bremen in Germany).Dr. Antoine Duval is Senior Researcher for International and European Sports Law at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut in The Hague. He holds a Ph.D. on the interaction between Lex Sportiva and EU Law from the European University Institute in Florence. Prof. Antonio Rigozzi teaches international arbitration and sports law at the University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland, and is the partner in charge of the sports arbitration practice at Lévy Kaufmann-Kohler, a Geneva-based law firm specializing in international arbitration.

Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2015 1st Table of contents:

Part I General Articles
1 Assessing the Usefulness and Legitimacy of CAS
Abstract
1.1 Introduction
1.2 The Role of International Federations
1.3 The Behaviour of Supporters of the Accused
1.4 Future Directions
2 The Influence of Common Law Traditions on the Practice and Procedure Before the Court of Arbitrati
Abstract
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The Origins of Common Law and Its Historical Development
2.3 The Modern Influence of Common Law on Legal Thinking and the Principle of Stare Decisis
2.4 The CAS and Its Procedure
2.4.1 Origins and Historical Development
2.4.2 The Reforms of 1994
2.4.3 The Significance of the Code
2.5 Common Law or Civil Law?
2.5.1 Binding or Persuasive Authority?
2.5.2 The CAS Standard of Proof as an Example of a Practising Common Law Tradition
2.6 Conclusion
References
3 The Validity of Analytical Science in Anti-doping—A Scientific and Legal Challenge
Abstract
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The Lallukka CAS Award: The Latest Instalment in the hGH Trilogy
3.2.1 The Positive Test
3.2.2 National-Level Proceedings
3.2.3 CAS Proceedings
3.2.3.1 The Anti-doping Rule Violation
3.2.3.2 The Sanction
3.3 Background of the hGH Trilogy
3.3.1 Challenges for Anti-doping Science
3.3.2 The hGH Trilogy Before CAS Panels on the Decision Limits in the Isoform Test
3.3.3 The hGH Isoform Test After WADA v. Lallukka: A Closed Debate or a Need for Rethinking the Syst
3.4 Attributing a Legal Status to Scientific Issues Under the WADA Code Regime
3.4.1 Threshold Substance, Non-threshold Substance, or….?
3.4.2 What Legal Implications Do the Decision Limits Have in Practice?
3.4.3 Need for Adapting the Legal Framework to Evolving Realities?
3.5 Expert Evidence Before CAS Panels
3.5.1 Importance of Expert Evidence in Doping Disputes
3.5.2 Who Acts as an Expert Before CAS?
3.5.3 Assessing Expert Evidence
3.5.4 Pitfalls to Be Avoided in Dealing with Science and Experts
3.5.5 Financial Aid for Athletes on Scientific Matters?
3.6 Conclusion—Outlook Beyond 2015
References
4 The Sell-on Clause in Football: Recent Cases and Evolutions
Abstract
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The Sell-on Clause in Football Transfer Contracts
4.2.1 Conditions and Peculiarities
4.2.2 Recent FIFA and CAS Jurisprudence
4.2.2.1 Interpretation Issues: ‘Transfer—Transfer Fee’
4.2.2.2 Sell-on Clause in Combination with ‘Participation Agreement’
4.3 Case Commentary: CAS 2014A3508—Areas of Dispute
4.3.1 Factual and Procedural Background
4.3.2 Decision of the Panel
4.3.3 Commentary
4.3.3.1 Interpretation Principles
4.3.3.2 Aims and Conditions of the Sell-on Clause
4.3.3.3 The Simulated Transfer
4.3.3.4 Sell-on Fee—Calculation Basis
4.4 Sell-on Fees and Third Party Ownership (TPO)
4.5 Conclusion
Reference
5 CAS Provisional and Conservatory Measures and Other Options to Be Granted Interim Legal Relief
Abstract
5.1 Introductory Remarks
5.2 Criteria for Granting CAS Provisional and Conservatory Measures
5.2.1 Overview
5.2.2 Procedural Requirements
5.2.2.1 Time Limit
5.2.2.2 Exhaustion of Remedies Before Sports Federation or Body
5.2.2.3 Security
5.2.2.4 Expedited Measures
5.2.2.5 “Stay of Execution”
5.2.3 Substantial Criteria for Granting Provisional Measures
5.2.3.1 Irreparable Harm
5.2.3.2 Likelihood of Success on the Merits
5.2.3.3 Balance of Interests
5.3 Enforcement of CAS Provisional and Conservatory Measures
5.4 Waiver of State Courts’ Jurisdiction?—Parallel Competence of State Courts
5.5 Appeals Against Provisional Measures
5.6 Provisional Measures in the Swiss Federal Tribunal
5.7 Concluding Remarks
References
6 The Basketball Arbitral Tribunal—An Overview of Its Process and Decisions
Abstract
6.1 Introduction
6.2 BAT Arbitration—How Does It Work?
6.2.1 BAT Arbitration in a Nutshell
6.2.2 BAT Proceedings—Step by Step
6.2.3 The Applicable Law and the Making of the Award
6.2.4 Remedies Against BAT Awards
6.2.5 The Enforcement of BAT Awards
6.3 BAT Arbitration—What Does It Mean?
6.3.1 Deciding Sports Disputes Ex Aequo et Bono
6.3.2 Examples from the BAT Case Law
6.3.2.1 The Concept of “Guaranteed no-Cut Contracts”
6.3.2.2 Common Grounds for Termination
6.3.2.3 The Requirement to Give Notice
6.3.2.4 Immediate Termination
6.3.2.5 Termination in Relation to the Specific Breach Relied upon
6.3.2.6 Ancillary Claims
6.3.2.7 The Duty to Mitigate and Other Defences
References
Part II Commentaries of CAS Awards
7 CAS 2013A3365 Juventus FC v. Chelsea FC and CAS 2013A3366 A.S. Livorno Calcio S.p.A. v. Chelsea FC
Abstract
7.1 Facts and Procedure of the Case
7.2 Interpreting Article 14(3) FIFA RSTP with a Little Help of EU Law
7.2.1 Contractual or Quasi-statutory Interpretation?
7.2.2 EU Law as a Decisive Contextual Element to Interpret the FIFA RSTP
7.3 Beyond the Mutu Case: How Much Contractual Stability is Compatible with EU Law?
7.4 Conclusion: Interpretation Matters!
References
8 CAS 2014A3486, MFK Dubnica V. FC Parma, Award of 2 February 2015
Abstract
8.1 Facts and Procedure
8.1.1 The Parties
8.1.2 The Facts
8.1.3 The Arguments
8.1.3.1 Dubnica’s Arguments
8.1.3.2 Parma’s Arguments
8.1.4 The Law
8.1.5 The Merits
8.1.5.1 The Exclusion of Evidence Pursuant to Article R57(3) CAS Code
8.1.5.2 Was Dubnica Entitled to Receive Training Compensation from Parma?
8.1.5.3 Did the Player Complete His Training Prior to His Registration with Parma?
8.1.5.4 To What Amount of Training Compensation Was Dubnica Entitled, if Any?
8.2 Commentary
8.2.1 The Exclusion of Evidence Based on Article R57(3) CAS Code
8.2.2 The Requirement to Submit a Contract Offer by Registered Mail
8.2.3 When Has the Player’s Training Ended?
8.3 Conclusion
References
9 TAS 2011A2578, OGC Nice Côte d’Azur & Yannick Dos Santos Djalo v. FIFA, Order on Provisional Me
Abstract
9.1 Facts
9.2 TAS 2011A2578—Request for Provisional Measures
9.2.1 Request
9.2.2 Argumentation by the Parties
9.2.3 Assessment by the Panel
9.2.4 Commentary
9.3 CAS 2013A3647 Sporting V. OGC Nice & CAS 2013A3648 OGC Nice V. Sporting & FIFA
9.3.1 Events Following the Request for Provisional Measures
9.3.2 Argumentation by the Parties
9.3.2.1 Sporting
9.3.2.2 OGC Nice
9.3.3 Assessment by the Panel
9.3.3.1 Intention of the Parties Prompting the Conditions Precedent
9.3.3.2 Did OGC Nice Fail to Take the Necessary Actions to Trigger the Condition?
9.3.3.3 Bad Faith by OGC Nice?
9.3.4 Damages
9.3.4.1 General
9.3.4.2 Contributory Negligence?
9.3.5 Commentary
Reference
10 CAS 2014A3832 & 3833, Vanessa Vanakorn v. Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS), Award of 19 J
Abstract
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Case History and Context
10.3 Facts and Procedure
10.4 Parties’ Submissions and Arguments
10.5 Panel’s Rationale and Award
10.6 Commentary and Conclusion
References
11 CAS 2015A3874, Football Association of Albania v. UEFA & Football Association of Serbia, Award of
Abstract
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Summary of Facts and Procedure
11.2.1 Facts
11.2.2 Procedure
11.3 Comment
11.3.1 Case Management: Two Separate CAS Appeal Proceedings
11.3.2 Standing to Appeal and the Notion of ‘Directly Affected Party’
11.3.3 Strict Liability and the Notion of ‘Supporter’
11.3.4 Host Team’s and UEFA’s Duties for Order and Security at UEFA Competitions
11.3.5 Refusing to Play or Being Responsible for a Match not Being Played in Full
References
12 CAS 2014A3759, Chand v. AFI & IAAF, Award of 24 July 2015
Abstract
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Background
12.3 CAS Proceedings
12.4 Discussion of the Merits
12.4.1 Request for Relief
12.4.1.1 CAS Award
12.4.1.2 Comments
12.4.2 Evidentiary Issues and Deference to the Sports Organization’s Discretion
12.4.2.1 CAS Award
12.4.2.2 Athlete’s Position
12.4.2.3 IAAF’s Position
12.4.2.4 The CAS Panel’s Analysis
12.4.2.5 Comments
12.4.2.5.1 Burden and Standard of Proof in Science-Related Domains
12.4.2.5.2 Need to Distinguish Evidence on Facts and the Scientific Foundations of a Regulation
12.4.2.5.3 Deference of a CAS Panel to Sports Organization’s Discretion
12.4.3 Scientific Validity, Discrimination, and Proportionality
12.4.3.1 CAS Award
12.4.3.1.1 Scientific Validity
12.4.3.1.2 Discrimination
12.4.3.1.3 Proportionality
12.4.3.2 Comments
12.4.3.2.1 Deference to the Parties’ Agreement Beyond the Facts of the Dispute
12.4.3.2.2 Artificial Separation Between Scientific Validity and Proportionality Assessment
12.4.3.2.3 Failure to Look into the Ultimate Foundations for the Regulations
12.4.4 No Disguised Impermissible Doping Sanction
12.4.4.1 CAS Award
12.4.4.1.1 Athlete’s Position
12.4.4.1.2 IAAF’s Position
12.4.4.1.3 The CAS Panel’s Analysis
12.4.4.2 Comments
12.4.4.2.1 No ‘Impermissible’ Doping Sanction
12.4.4.2.2 The Ultimate Issue—Extension of the Control on Human Performance
12.4.5 Rendering of an ‘Interim’ Award
12.4.5.1 CAS Award
12.4.5.2 Comments
12.5 Conclusion
References
13 CAS 2014A3474, Clube de Regatas do Flamengo v. Confederaçao Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) & Superi
Abstract
13.1 Introduction
13.2 The Starting Point: Article R47 of the CAS Code
13.3 Direct Jurisdictional Clauses in Theory
13.3.1 Identify the Arbitral Body
13.3.2 Scope of the Dispute
13.3.3 Standing to Appeal
13.4 Established CAS Jurisprudence
13.4.1 Direct Jurisdiction: Expressly Recognized
13.4.2 The Pizarro Decision: Indirect Jurisdiction
13.4.3 Indirect Jurisdiction Explained
13.5 Flamengo v. CBF & STJD: The Award
13.5.1 The Facts of the Case
13.5.2 Indirect Jurisdiction of the CAS in Flamengo
13.5.3 Merits of the Flamengo Decision
13.5.4 Conclusions Regarding Flamengo
13.6 Indirect Jurisdiction of the CAS in UEFA FFP Matters
13.6.1 Context: The Delegation of Licensing Decisions to National Associations
13.6.2 Context: Powers and Decisions of UEFA
13.6.3 No Indirect Jurisdiction: Rayo Vallecano and Parma FC
13.6.4 Direct Jurisdiction: The Romanian Football Federation
13.7 Indirect Jurisdiction of the CAS in Decisions of the FIA
13.7.1 FIA: The Legal Landscape
13.7.2 No Indirect Jurisdiction of the CAS for Decisions of the FIA
13.8 Conclusion
14 CAS 2014A3730, FK Bohemians Praha v. FA Czech Republic, Award of 22 December 2015
Abstract
14.1 Facts and Procedure
14.1.1 The Facts
14.1.2 The Parties’ Arguments Before the CAS
14.1.2.1 The Appellant’s Statement of Appeal
14.1.2.2 The Respondent’s Answer
14.1.2.3 The Appellant’s Second Brief
14.1.2.4 The Respondent’s Rejoinder
14.2 Commentary
14.2.1 The Applicable Rules of Law
14.2.2 Merits of the Dispute: The Appellant’s Request for Setting Aside the Challenged Decision an
14.3 Conclusion
Part III Commentaries of Decisions of National Courts
15 Oberlandesgericht Bremen, 2 U 6714, SV Wilhelmshaven v. Norddeutscher Fußball-Verband e.V, 30 De
Abstract
15.1 Facts and Procedure of the Case
15.2 The Compatibility of FIFA’s Training Compensation System with EU Law
15.2.1 The FIFA RSTP’s Training Compensation System
15.2.2 The Compatibility of FIFA’s Training Compensation System with EU Law: Many Questions
15.2.3 The Compatibility of FIFA’s Training Compensation System with EU Law: Some Answers in the S
15.3 The Challenge to the Private Enforcement System of CAS Awards by FIFA
15.3.1 The Private Enforcement System of CAS Awards by FIFA
15.3.2 The OLG Bremen’s Challenge to FIFA’s Private Enforcement System
15.4 Conclusion
References
16 Oberlandesgericht München, Az. U 111014 Kart, Claudia Pechstein v International Skating Union (I
Abstract
16.1 Introduction
16.2 Facts and Proceedings
16.3 Commentary
16.3.1 The Invalidity of CAS Arbitration Agreements
16.3.2 The Non-recognition of the CAS Awards
References
17 Sports Arbitration Cases Before the Swiss Federal Tribunal in 2015—A Digest
Abstract
17.1 Introduction
17.2 The Legal Framework Governing Remedies Against Sports Arbitral Awards in Switzerland
17.2.1 Overview
17.2.2 The Action for Annulment Against International Arbitral Awards Before the SFT
17.2.2.1 Admissibility
17.2.2.2 Requirements as to the Contents of the Application (and Other Written Submissions Before th
17.2.2.3 Nature and Effects of the Action for Annulment; SFT’s Power of Review
17.2.2.4 Grounds for Annulment (Article 190(2)(a)–(e) PILA)
17.2.2.5 Procedure Before the SFT
17.2.2.6 Consequences of the SFT’s Decision
17.3 Summaries of the SFT’s Decisions Rendered Between 1 January and 31 December 2015
17.3.1 Article 190(2)(a) PILA—Irregular Constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal
17.3.1.1 SFT 4A_1262015, Decision of 14 April 2015
17.3.2 Article 190(2)(b) PILA—Incorrect Decision on Jurisdiction
17.3.2.1 SFT 4A_1762015, Decision of 9 November 2015
17.3.3 Article 190(2)(c) PILA—Award Ultra, Extra or Infra Petita
17.3.3.1 SFT 4A_6842014, Decision of 2 July 2015
17.3.4 Article 190(2)(d) PILA—Violation of the Parties’ Right to Be Heard and Equal Treatment
17.3.4.1 SFT 4A_5682015, Decision of 10 December 2015
17.3.4.2 SFT 4A_2462014, Decision of 15 July 2015
17.3.4.3 SFT 4A_1242015, Decision of 17 June 2015
17.3.4.4 SFT 4A_4262014, Decision of 6 May 2015
17.3.4.5 SFT 4A_702015, Decision of 29 April 2015
17.3.4.6 SFT 4A_5442014, Decision of 24 February 2015
17.3.5 Article 190(2)(e) PILA—Award Contravening Public Policy
17.3.5.1 SFT 4A_5682015, Decision of 10 December 2015
17.3.5.2 SFT 4A_2462014, Decision of 15 July 2015
17.3.5.3 SFT 4A_6342014, Decision of 21 May 2015
17.3.5.4 SFT 4A_3742014, Decision of 26 February 2015

People also search for Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2015 1st:

yearbook of international sports arbitration 2015    
yearbook of international sports arbitration    
yearbook on international arbitration and adr    
yearbook commercial arbitration

Tags:

Antoine Duval,Antonio Rigozzi,YearbookInternational Sports,Arbitration