View source for Court of Arbitration for Sport

{{short description|International arbitral body for sports disputes}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2014}}
{{Infobox high court
|court_name       = Court of Arbitration for Sport
|native_name      = {{in lang|fr}} ''Tribunal arbitral du sport''
|image            = Logo-Court of Arbitration for Sport.svg
|imagesize        = 300px
|caption          = 
|motto            =
|established      = 1984<ref name=history>{{cite web|url=http://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/history-of-the-cas.html|title=History of the Court of Arbitration for Sport|publisher=Court of Arbitration for Sport|date=|access-date=5 May 2016}}</ref>
|dissolved        = <!-- year -->
|location         = [[Lausanne]], Switzerland
|coordinates      = <!-- {{coord|45.000|-122.000|display=inline,title}} -->
|type             = <!-- partisan election/non-partisan election/legislative selection/executive selection/co-option/etc -->
|authority        = [[International Olympic Committee]] ([[Olympic Charter]])
|appealsto          = [[Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland]]
|terms            = <!-- length of court term for judges -->
|positions        = <!-- number of positions/seats on court -->
|budget           = <!-- amount of annual budget -->
|website          = {{official URL}}
| chiefjudgetitle = President
| chiefjudgename  = [[John Coates (sports administrator)|John Coates]]
| termstart       = 2011
}}
[[File:Court of Arbitration for Sport - Lausanne 2.jpg|thumb|Old headquarters, in [[Lausanne]], [[Switzerland]]]]

The '''Court of Arbitration for Sport''' ('''CAS'''; {{langx|fr|Tribunal arbitral du sport}}, '''TAS''') is an international body established in 1984 to settle disputes related to sport through [[arbitration]]. Its headquarters are in [[Lausanne]], Switzerland, and its courts are located in [[New York City]], [[Sydney]], and Lausanne. Temporary courts are established in current [[Olympic host cities]].

The '''International Council of Arbitration for Sport''' ('''ICAS''') was established simultaneously, and a single president presides over both bodies. The ICAS, which has a membership of 20 individuals, is responsible for the financing of and financial reporting by the CAS, and it appoints the Director-General of the CAS.<ref name="code">{{cite news |title=Code : Statutes of ICAS and CAS |url=https://www.tas-cas.org/en/icas/code-statutes-of-icas-and-cas.html |access-date=28 June 2020 |publisher=Court of Arbitration for Sport }}</ref>

==Jurisdiction and appeals==
Generally speaking, a dispute may be submitted to the CAS only if an arbitration agreement between the parties specifies recourse to the CAS. However, according to rule 61 of the Olympic Charter, all disputes in connection with the Olympic Games can only be submitted to CAS,<ref name="olympic1">[[International Olympic Committee]]: [http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf Olympic Charter] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091007023126/http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf |date=7 October 2009 }}</ref> and all Olympic [[List of international sports federations|international federations]] (IF) have recognised the jurisdiction of CAS for at least some disputes.<ref>Richard H. McLaren, [http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1482&context=sportslaw Twenty-Five Years of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: A Look in the Rear-View Mirror, 20 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 305] (2010)</ref>

Through compliance with the 2009 [[World Anti-Doping Agency|World Anti-Doping Code]], all signatories, including all Olympic international federations and [[National Olympic Committee]]s, have recognised the jurisdiction of CAS for [[Doping in sport|anti-doping rule violations]].<ref name="olympic1"/><ref>[[World Anti-Doping Agency]]: [http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v2009_en.pdf 2009 World Anti-Doping Code] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120824032644/http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v2009_En.pdf |date=24 August 2012 }}</ref><ref>Hilary Findlay and Marcus F. Mazzucco: [https://www.academia.edu/1190383/The_Supervisory_Role_of_the_Court_of_Arbitration_for_Sport_in_Regulating_the_International_Sport_System The Supervisory Role of the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Regulating the International Sport System]</ref> Starting in 2016, an anti-doping division of CAS judges, who specialize in doping cases at the Olympic Games, replaced the IOC disciplinary commission.<ref>Karolos Grohman: [https://web.archive.org/web/20160809023825/http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-olympics-doping-cas-idUKKCN0W35IA CAS to take over doping cases at Olympics] Accessed 18 June 2016.</ref> These decisions can be appealed to CAS's ad hoc court in the Olympic host city or, if the ad hoc court is no longer available, to the permanent CAS.<ref>Court of Arbitration for Sport: [http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Arbitration_Rules_for_the_Anti-doping_Division__final_.pdf Arbitration Rules Applicable to the CAS Anti-doping division] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160626004855/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Arbitration_Rules_for_the_Anti-doping_Division__final_.pdf |date=26 June 2016 }} Accessed 18 June 2016.</ref> The inaugural anti-doping division handled eight cases, of which seven were doping cases within its jurisdiction.<ref name="CAS2016">Court of Arbitration for Sport: [http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Report_on_the_activities_of_the_CAS_Divisions_at_the_2016_Rio_Olympic_Games__short_version__FINAL.pdf Report on the activities of the CAS Divisions at the 2016 Rio Olympic Games] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160913232645/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Report_on_the_activities_of_the_CAS_Divisions_at_the_2016_Rio_Olympic_Games__short_version__FINAL.pdf |date=13 September 2016 }} Accessed 31 August 2016</ref>

As a Swiss arbitration organization, decisions of the CAS can be appealed to the [[Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland]].<ref>Court of Arbitration for Sport: [http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media20Release20FC20Sion.pdf Media release 23 July 2012] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141231175823/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media20Release20FC20Sion.pdf |date=31 December 2014 }}</ref> Appeals of arbitration decisions are generally not successful,<ref>CAS Bulletin 2011/2 [http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Bulletin202_2011.pdf Appeals against Arbitral Awards by the CAS] by Stephan Netzle {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150415043915/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Bulletin202_2011.pdf |date=15 April 2015 }}</ref> and no evaluation of the merits takes place, with the evaluation mainly based on whether procedural requirements have been met, and whether the award is incompatible with [[public policy]]. {{As of|2012|3|post=,}} there have been seven successful appeals. Six of the upheld appeals were procedural in nature. Overruling a CAS decision on the case's merits is extremely rare. It occurred in 2012 for the first time in more than 20 years when the Federal Supreme Court overturned the case of [[Matuzalém]], a Brazilian football player accused of [[breach of contract]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Landmark Matuzalem Case And Its Consequences On The FIFA Regulations - Sport - Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment - Switzerland |url=https://www.mondaq.com/sport/184712/the-landmark-matuzalem-case-and-its-consequences-on-the-fifa-regulations |access-date=2024-09-05 |website=www.mondaq.com}}</ref> In 2020, the Supreme Court overturned the case of [[Sun Yang]], a Chinese swimmer accused of doping.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-08-13 |title=Why Does Jordan Chiles Have to Appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal to Keep Olympics Bronze Medal? |url=https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/why-does-jordan-chiles-appeal-190030131.html#:~:text=It's%20rare,%20but%20the%20Swiss,on%20Chinese%20swimmer%20Sun%20Yang. |access-date=2024-09-05 |website=Yahoo Entertainment |language=en-US}}</ref> CAS decisions can be the subject of further appeal to the [[European Court of Human Rights|European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)]].<ref name="Ronay">{{Cite news|last=Ronay|first=Barney|date=2020-03-05|title=Michel Platini's appeal over ban rejected by European court of human rights|language=en-GB|work=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/mar/05/michel-platini-appeal-over-ban-rejected-by-european-court-of-human-rights-football|access-date=2020-09-13|issn=0261-3077}}</ref> For example, the ECHR found CAS and the Federal Supreme Court discriminated against and violated the privacy of runner [[Caster Semenya]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-05-14 |title=European rights court to make final decision on Olympic champion Semenya |url=https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240514-european-rights-court-to-make-final-decision-on-olympic-champion-semenya |access-date=2024-09-05 |website=France 24 |language=en}}</ref>

German speed skater [[Claudia Pechstein]], who was unsuccessful in lifting a doping-related suspension in her CAS case, appealed to the [[Federal Court of Justice of Germany]], which however ruled against her, recognising a lack of jurisdiction to revisit her case. The Federal Court ruled that CAS met the requirements of a court of arbitration according to German law and that CAS's independence from the parties was secured by the method of selecting arbitrators and the possibility to appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal.<ref>Christian Keidel: [http://www.lawinsport.com/sports-law-news/item/german-federal-tribunal-rejects-claudia-pechstein-s-claim-for-damages-against-international-skating-union-isu German Federal Tribunal rejects Claudia Pechstein’s claim for damages against International Skating Union (ISU)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190322121701/https://www.lawinsport.com/sports-law-news/item/german-federal-tribunal-rejects-claudia-pechstein-s-claim-for-damages-against-international-skating-union-isu |date=22 March 2019 }} Accessed 17 June 2016.</ref><ref>CAS hosted: [http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Pechstein___ISU_translation_ENG_final.pdf English translation of German Federal Tribunal decision] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160803174029/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Pechstein___ISU_translation_ENG_final.pdf |date=3 August 2016 }}</ref> However, this decision was in turn overturned by the [[Federal Constitutional Court of Germany]], which ordered a re-trial that is still pending.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2022/06/rk20220603_1bvr210316.html | title=Bundesverfassungsgericht - Entscheidungen - Erfolgreiche Verfassungsbeschwerde wegen mangelhafter Abwägung bei Prüfung der Zulässigkeit einer Schiedsklausel | date=3 June 2022 }}</ref>

==History==
With the intermixing of [[sports and politics]], the body was originally conceived by [[International Olympic Committee]] (IOC) president [[Juan Antonio Samaranch]] to deal with disputes arising during the Olympics. It was established as part of the IOC in [[1984 in sports|1984]].<ref name=history/>

In 1992, the case of ''Gundel v. La Fédération Equestre Internationale'' was decided by the CAS, and then appealed to the [[Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland]], challenging CAS impartiality. The Swiss court ruled that the CAS was a true court of [[arbitration]] but drew attention to the numerous links between the CAS and the IOC.<ref>[http://www.polyreg.ch/bgepub/Band_119_1993/BGE_119_II_271.html BGE 119 II 271] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170106035733/http://www.polyreg.ch/bgepub/Band_119_1993/BGE_119_II_271.html |date=6 January 2017 }} (Gundel v La Fédération Equestre Internationale)</ref>

In response, the CAS underwent reforms to make itself more independent of the IOC, both organizationally and financially. The most significant change resulting from this reform was the creation of an "International Council of Arbitration for Sport" (ICAS) to look after the running and financing of the CAS, thereby taking the place of the IOC.

As of 2022, 9695 cases had been submitted to CAS since 1986. Ordinary and ad hoc cases were first accepted in 1995, mediation cases in 1999, and anti-doping cases in 2016.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022 |title=CAS Statistics |url=https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_statistics_2022.pdf |access-date=15 August 2024}}</ref> As of August 2024, there are 422 CAS Arbitrators around the world, with 216 from Europe, and 52 Mediators.<ref>{{Cite web |date=July 2024 |title=List of CAS Arbitrators by Nationality |url=https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Liste_des_arbitres_par_nationalite_2024__sans_ADD__July_24.pdf |access-date=15 August 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=September 2023 |title=List of CAS Mediators by Nationality |url=https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Liste_des_mediateurs_par_nationalite__09.2023__FINAL.pdf |access-date=15 August 2024}}</ref>

==ICAS Board==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Designation !! Name !! Country
|-
| '''ICAS/CAS President''' || [[John_Coates_(sports_administrator)|John D. Coates]] || {{AUS}}
|-
| rowspan="3" | '''ICAS Vice-Presidents''' || [[Michael Lenard|Michael B. Lenard OLY]] || {{USA}}
|-
|[[Elisabeth Steiner|Dr. Elisabeth Steiner]]
|{{AUT}}
|-
| Antonio F. Arimany || {{ESP}}
|-
| '''President of CAS Ordinary Division'''||Carole Malinvaud || {{FRA}}
|-
| '''President of Appeals Arbitration Division'''|| [[Corinne Schmidhauser|Corinne Schmidhauser OLY]]|| {{SUI}}
|-
| '''Non-Member Secretary and CAS Director General''' || Matthieu Reeb || {{SUI}}
|}

==ICAS Members (2023–2026)==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Name !! Country
|-
| Prof. Abdullah Al Hayyan || {{KUW}}
|-
| Antonio F. Arimany, ICAS Vice President || {{ESP}}
|-
| [[John Coates (sports administrator)|John D. Coates]], ICAS President || {{AUS}}
|-
| Ivo Eusebio, President of the Anti-Doping Division || {{SUI}}
|-
| Louis Everard || {{NED}}
|-
| Dr. Emilio Garcia Silvero || {{ESP}}
|-
| Dyalá Jiménez || {{CRI}}
|-
| [[Silja Kanerva|Silja Kanerva OLY]]|| {{FIN}}
|-
| [[Michael Lenard|Michael B. Lenard OLY]], ICAS Vice President || {{USA}}
|-
| Carole Malinvaud, President of the CAS Ordinary Division || {{FRA}}
|-
| [[Dariusz Mioduski|Dr. Dariusz Mioduski]]|| {{POL}}
|-
| Prof. Giulio Napolitano, Deputy President of the Ordinary Arbitration Division || {{ITA}}
|-
| [[Ellen Gracie Northfleet|Judge Ellen Gracie Northfleet]]|| {{BRA}}
|-
|Kevin Plumb || {{GBR}}
|-
| Mikael Rentsch || {{SWE}}
|-
| [[David W. Rivkin]], Deputy President of the Anti-Doping Division || {{USA}}
|-
| [[Corinne Schmidhauser|Corinne Schmidhauser OLY]], President of the Appeals Arbitration Division || {{SUI}}
|-
| [[Tricia Smith|Tricia C.M. Smith OLY]]|| {{CAN}}
|-
|[[Nicola Spirig|Nicola Spirig OLY]]
|{{SUI}}
|-
| [[Elisabeth Steiner|Dr. Elisabeth Steiner]], ICAS Vice President and Deputy President of the Appeals Arbitration Division|| {{AUT}}
|-
| [[Xue Hanqin|Judge Hanqin Xue]]|| {{CHN}}
|-
|Mattieu Reeb, Non-Member Secretary
|{{SUI}}
|}

==Jurisprudence examples of note==
===Doping===

* In March 2011, CAS decided its first case on [[biological passport|athlete biological passports]] (ABP) when it suspended two Italian cyclists, [[Franco Pellizotti]] and [[Pietro Caucchioli]], for two years based on evidence from their blood profiles.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/sports/cycling/09cycling.html?_r=1 Court Upholds Cyclist's Ban Based on Biological Passport] ''New York Times''. Retrieved 24 March 2013</ref>

:Prior to that, the case of skater [[Claudia Pechstein]] had been decided (2009/A/1912 & 1913) on similar grounds.<ref name="tas-cas.org">CAS Bulletin 2011/2
[http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Bulletin202_2011.pdf The Athlete Biological Passport Program] by Despina Mavromati {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150415043915/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Bulletin202_2011.pdf |date=15 April 2015 }}</ref> Writing in the 2011/2 ''CAS Bulletin'' regarding the institution of the ABP program, CAS Counsel Despina Mavromati differentiated between the two types of cases and wrote:

:{{blockquote|It is noteworthy that CAS had already issued an award suspending an athlete based on the longitudinal profiling of the biological markers before the adoption of the ABP by the IFs [international federations]: in CAS 2009/A/1912 & 1913 [Pechstein], the Panel suspended an Olympic athlete after the biological data showed irregular blood values. According to CAS, those abnormal values were not caused by an error in a laboratory, as the athlete asserted, but due to the banned manipulation of the athlete’s blood. The essential difference between ABP judgments and the CAS 2009/A/1912 & 1913 consists in that in the latter case, the athlete's blood data was drawn from a sample the athlete gave at the federations championships and therefore not from data gathered by an official systematic program run by the athlete's union.<ref name="tas-cas.org"/>}}

* In 2001, the court decided the case of ''[[Andreea Răducan]] v. [[International Olympic Committee]]''. This was a controversial anti-doping case, where it was fairly clear the athlete received cold and flu tablets from her doctor. This resulted in a positive urine test, with the court concluding:
:{{blockquote|"The Panel is aware of the impact its decision will have on a fine, young, elite athlete. It finds, in balancing the interests of Miss Raducan with the commitment of the Olympic Movement to drug-free sport, the Anti-Doping Code must be enforced without compromise."<ref>''Essentials of Sport Law'', by Glenn M. Wong, Fourth Edition, Note 5.3.9</ref>}}
* The court is reluctant to overturn [[Referee|field of play decisions]], though it may do so in cases where there is clear evidence that the officials acted in [[bad faith]] or with [[arbitrariness]].<ref>Court of Arbitration for Sport: [http://www.centrostudisport.it/PDF/TAS_CAS_ULTIMO/105.pdf CAS 2012/A/2731 ''BOC & BTC & Márcio W. Ferreira v/ WTF & COM & FMT & Damian A.Villa Valadez''] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150612190934/http://www.centrostudisport.it/PDF/TAS_CAS_ULTIMO/105.pdf |date=12 June 2015 }} See §104 in particular.</ref> In CAS 2010/A/2090, the CAS Panel explained that the reason for this is not a matter of jurisdiction but arbitral self-restraint.<ref>Aino-Kaisa Saarinen; Finnish Ski Association (FSA) v. Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS) [http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/2090.pdf CAS/2010/A/2090] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160819020625/http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/2090.pdf |date=19 August 2016 }}</ref>
* In October 2011, in a case affecting the [[2012 Summer Olympics]], the court declared that a part of the [[Olympic Charter]] violated the World Anti-Doping Code.<ref>USOC v. IOC [http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/2422.pdf CAS/2011/O/2422] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160818225535/http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/2422.pdf |date=18 August 2016 }}</ref> The "Osaka rule" therein had prevented athletes suspended for at least six months for anti-doping rule violations from competing at the Olympic Games following the suspension's expiration. The court later reaffirmed this decision, when it struck down a long-standing by-law of the [[British Olympic Association]] (BOA) preventing the selection of athletes sanctioned for doping.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/17853070 |title=London 2012: Dwain Chambers eligible after court ruling |work=BBC Sport |date=30 April 2012 |access-date=5 August 2012}}</ref><ref>BOA v. WADA [http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/2658.pdf CAS/2011/A/2658] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160806093907/http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/2658.pdf |date=6 August 2016 }}</ref> Both the IOC and BOA have responded by campaigning for adding a similar rule to the World Anti-Doping Code.
*In July 2016, CAS confirmed that the [[Russian Olympic Committee]] (ROC) could not enter track and field athletes for the [[2016 Summer Olympics]], except for those cleared by the [[IAAF]] under the new competition rules regarding "neutral athletes". As the [[IOC]] was not a party to the case, the panel found it lacked jurisdiction to decide on whether the IOC could allow such cleared athletes to represent [[Russia at the 2016 Summer Olympics|Russia]], allow them to compete [[Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics|independently]], or refuse their participation entirely.<ref name="Russia athletics CAS press release">Court of Arbitration for Sport: [http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_4684_210716.pdf CAS rejects the claims/appeal of the Russian Olympic Committee and 68 Russian athletes] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160721161455/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_4684_210716.pdf |date=21 July 2016 }} Accessed 25 July 2016.</ref> The claimants disputed the validity and enforceability of IAAF Competition rule 22.1(a), regarding the suspension of the national federation ([[All-Russia Athletic Federation|RusAF, formerly ARAF]]), and rule 22.1A, regarding the eligibility of athletes from suspended federations. The panel found that neither rule could be construed as sanctions, and for this and other reasons, they were consistent with the World Anti-Doping Code. The panels commented on the futility of the challenge to the new rule 22.1A, noting that as the rule provided athletes from Russia a new route to participation, a successful challenge would lead to the exclusion of athletes eligible under the rule, not the inclusion of other athletes. The panel decided against evaluating whether the principle of [[estoppel]] applies to sporting disputes, as it found the claims, in this case, would have failed.<ref>Court of Arbitration for Sports: [http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_4684__internet_.pdf ROC ''et al.'' v. IAAF] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161105041851/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_4684__internet_.pdf |date=5 November 2016 }} Accessed 4 November 2016.</ref> At the same time, in a separate decision, the panel rejected the appeals of 67 Russian athletes against the decisions of the IAAF denying their applications to appear as "neutral athletes" at the 2016 Summer Olympics.<ref name="Russia athletics CAS press release" /> [[Darya Klishina]] was the only Russian athlete cleared by both the IAAF and the IOC. However, the IAAF declared her ineligible on 12 August based on new information. On 15 August, the CAS ad hoc court upheld Klishina's appeal.<ref>Court of Arbitration for Sport: [http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release__English__Klishina_final.pdf Athletics: The application filed by Darya Klishina (Russia) is upheld by the CAS] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160828090729/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release__English__Klishina_final.pdf |date=28 August 2016 }} Accessed 15 August 2016.</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Russia's sole athlete Darya Klishina cleared to compete after appeal|url=https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/15/russias-darya-klishina-to-compete-after-appeal|work=The Guardian|access-date=15 August 2016}}</ref>
*The [[International Paralympic Committee]] (IPC) decided to ban [[Russia at the 2016 Summer Paralympics|Russia]] from the [[2016 Summer Paralympics]] due to the findings of the McLaren report. The appeal of the [[Russian Paralympic Committee]] (RPC) against the ban was dismissed by the CAS on 23 August. The court found that the suspension had a basis in the IPC rules and stated that it "was proportionate in the circumstances". The panel noted that it had not decided the rights of individual athletes.<ref>Court of Arbitration for Sport: [http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_RPC_IPC.pdf CAS dismisses the appeal filed by the Russian Paralympic Committee] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160823101112/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_RPC_IPC.pdf |date=23 August 2016 }} Accessed 23 August 2016</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Rio Paralympics 2016: Russia banned after losing appeal|url=https://www.bbc.com/sport/disability-sport/37165427|work=BBC Sport|access-date=23 August 2016}}</ref> In its reasoned decision the panel elaborated on this point, stating that adverse consequences for the athletes represented by the RPC were not a reason to absolve the organisation from its legal responsibilities. The panel dismissed the claim that the IOC decision should have influenced the IPC decision, noting that the organisations have separate charters and rules. As the IPC also acts as an IF the court referred to the case between the RWF and the IWF where CAS upheld a similar suspension.<ref>Court of Arbitration for Sport: [http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_4745_Final.pdf RPC v. IPC] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160909060947/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_4745_Final.pdf |date=9 September 2016 }} (The sections referred to are from paragraph 79 onwards). Accessed 31 August 2016.</ref>
*In late 2017, the IOC disqualified a large number of Russian athletes' results from the [[2014 Winter Olympics]]. The athletes were also given lifetime bans from future editions of the games. CAS registered 42 appeals, of which 39 were decided before the [[2018 Winter Olympics]]. For 28 athletes, the panel found that the evidence presented by the IOC was not sufficient to establish rule violations. The disqualifications were upheld in the 11 remaining cases, but the ban was limited to the 2018 Games. The panel made clear that its mandate was limited to the individual cases. The case did not affect the status of [[Olympic Athletes from Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics|Russian athletes]] participating in PyeongChang.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release__decision_RUS_IOC_.pdf|title=The Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) issues its decision in the matter of 39 Russian athletes v/ the IOC|author=Court of Arbitration for Sports|date=1 February 2018|access-date=1 February 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180201081026/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release__decision_RUS_IOC_.pdf|archive-date=1 February 2018|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/sport/winter-olympics/42901377|title=Winter Olympics 2018: Court overturns life bans given to Russian athletes|publisher=BBC|date=1 February 2018|access-date=1 February 2018}}</ref> The IOC expressed its regret with the decision regarding the 28 athletes whose appeals were fully upheld, stating that the level of proof required was inconsistent with earlier CAS decisions. The IOC also stated that the sanctions being lifted were not a sufficient reason for inviting the 28 athletes to compete at the 2018 Games. The IOC said it would consider its options after receiving the reasoned decision.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-statement-on-cas-decision|title=IOC Statement on CAS decision|author=International Olympic Committee|date=1 February 2018|access-date=1 February 2018}}</ref> In response to the ruling by CAS, [[Jim Walden (lawyer)|Jim Walden]], the attorney representing [[Grigory Rodchenkov|Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov]], stated that the ruling made a "mockery" of the sanctions against Russia.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2018/02/05/in-the-latest-chapter-of-the-doping-scandal-russia-gets-a-pass/|title=Opinion {{!}} In the latest chapter of the doping scandal, Russia gets a pass|last=Walden|first=Jim|date=2018-02-05|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|access-date=2018-02-07|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286}}</ref>
* In 2018, the World Anti-Doping Agency appealed to the CAS after FIFA reduced a suspension of Peruvian national team captain [[Paolo Guerrero]]. Guerrero had tested positive for cocaine after a World Cup qualifier against Argentina after ingesting a tea containing the substance. Guerrero was initially suspended for twelve months, but this was later halved by FIFA's appeal committee. WADA, in turn, appealed to CAS, and they imposed the fourteen-month ban in May 2018, which will cause Guerrero to miss the [[2018 FIFA World Cup]]. CAS confirmed the existence of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) but also accepted that Guerrero was not trying to enhance his performance by ingesting the substance. The panel had considered that the player did bear some fault or negligence, even if it was not significant, and that he could have taken some measures to prevent him from committing the ADRV.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44115062|title=Peru's Guerrero to miss World Cup|work=BBC Sport}}</ref>

====2016 Summer Olympics ad hoc court====

The ad hoc court for the 2016 Olympics had registered 18 cases by 3 August, surpassing the record two days before the Opening Ceremony. 11 of the cases were related to the various bans on Russian athletes related to the [[Doping in Russia#July 2016|allegations of state-sponsored doping]] documented in the [[McLaren Report|McLaren report]].<ref name="3 August 2016">Court of Arbitration for Sport: [http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release__English__030816_final.pdf Media Release: 18 cases registered – Status as of 3 August 2016] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160820183343/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release__English__030816_final.pdf |date=20 August 2016 }} Accessed 3 August 2016</ref> By the end of the Games the total number of cases was 28, 16 of which were related to the eligibility of Russian athletes.<ref name="CAS2016" />
*On 3 August, the ad hoc court dismissed the appeal of the [[Russian Weightlifting Federation]] against its complete suspension under article 12.4 of the [[International Weightlifting Federation]] (IWF) anti-doping rules.<ref name="3 August 2016" /> The panel stated that the findings of the McLaren report constituted "conduct connected with or associated with doping", and found that the IWF had acted within its discretion when it decided that the RWF had brought the sport of weightlifting into disrepute. The panel noted that the re-analysis of doping tests from the [[2008 Summer Olympics|2008]] and [[2012 Summer Olympics|2012 Olympics]] had found nine cases of Russian athletes testing positive for [[Turinabol]] and stated that this indicated a centralized doping programme. Furthermore, the panel commented that the positive tests for Turinabol were consistent with the evidence provided by Dr [[Grigory Rodchenkov]] for the report.<ref>Court of Arbitration for Sport: [http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/REASONED_AWARD_OG_16-09.pdf CAS OG 16/09] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160822111906/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/REASONED_AWARD_OG_16-09.pdf |date=22 August 2016 }} Accessed 5 August 2016</ref>
*A separate panel of the ad hoc court found that the [[International Rowing Federation]] (FISA) had correctly applied the eligibility criteria outlined in the IOC decision of 24 July when it denied the entry of 17 athletes.<ref name="3 August 2016" /> One of the criteria in the IOC decision was that the ROC could not enter athletes that had previously served a doping ban. The CAS panel deciding the case involving the rowers [[Anastasia Karabelshikova]] and [[Ivan Podshivalov]] found this criterion unenforceable, and ordered FISA to evaluate the athletes according to the remaining criteria.<ref>Court of Arbitration for Sport: [http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release__English__Karabelshikova_final.pdf Rowing: The Appeal of Anastasia Karabelshikova and Ivan Podshivalov is partially upheld by CAS] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160821220259/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release__English__Karabelshikova_final.pdf |date=21 August 2016 }} Accessed 4 August 2016</ref> The panel referred to previous decisions on the "Osaka rule" and the BOA by-law. The panel compared the IOC decision with the IAAF decision on Russian athletes, and noted that the IOC, unlike the IAAF, had left athletes with a previous doping conviction without any path to participation, contravening principles of [[natural justice]].<ref>Court of Arbitration for Sport: [http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/final_award_CAS_OG_16-13.pdf CAS OG 16/13] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160822013822/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/final_award_CAS_OG_16-13.pdf |date=22 August 2016 }} Accessed 4 August 2016</ref> The same conclusion was shortly thereafter reached in the case of swimmer [[Yulia Efimova]],<ref>Court of Arbitration for Sport: [http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/FINAL_AWARD_OG_16-04.pdf CAS OG 16/04] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160827064150/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/FINAL_AWARD_OG_16-04.pdf |date=27 August 2016 }} Accessed 9 August 2016</ref> who subsequently competed and medalled at the Games.<ref>{{cite news|title=Rio Olympics 2016: Russia's Yulia Efimova beaten to gold by Lilly King of USA|url=https://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/36686211|work=BBC Sport|access-date=17 June 2016}}</ref>
*In the cases of canoeists [[Natalia Podolskaya (canoeist)|Natalia Podolskaya]] and [[Alexander Dyachenko (canoeist)|Alexander Dyachenko]] and rower [[Ivan Balandin]] the panels dismissed the applications, upholding the part of the IOC decision of 24 July that removed the presumption of innocence from Russian athletes. Balandin challenged the legality of the IOC decision, while Podolskaya and Dyachenko only challenged its application. The panel in Balandin's case found no reason to annul the second paragraph of the IOC decision, which, among other criteria, established that nobody implicated in the McLaren report was eligible for participation at the Games. The panel noted that while the decision establishes a presumption of guilt, this presumption is rebuttable by individual athletes. All three athletes were found to have benefitted from the "Disappearing Positive Methodology" described in the McLaren report and thus failed to meet the eligibility criteria of the IOC decision. The panels differed as to which [[standard of proof]] they required for the athletes' rebuttal of this presumption.<ref>Court of Arbitration for Sport: [http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award__FINAL_.pdf CAS OG 16/12] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190108050041/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award__FINAL_.pdf |date=8 January 2019 }} Accessed 9 August 2016</ref><ref>Court of Arbitration for Sport: [http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/AWARD_16-19.pdf CAS OG 16/19] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160827082834/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/AWARD_16-19.pdf |date=27 August 2016 }} Accessed 9 August 2016</ref>

===Other cases===

* In July 2015, in a case involving the issue of [[sex verification in sports]], the CAS issued an interim arbitral award suspending the regulations used by the IAAF to determine whether athletes with [[hyperandrogenism]] were eligible to compete in professional [[women's athletics]]. The regulations stated that athletes with testosterone levels above 10&nbsp;nmol/L were not allowed to compete in the female category. The regulations were challenged by Indian sprinter [[Dutee Chand]]. The panel ordered the IAAF to file scientific evidence regarding the connection between athletic performance and elevated [[testosterone]] levels within two years of the issuance of the interim award.<ref>{{cite web|author=Court of Arbitration for Sport|title=CAS suspends IAAF Hyperandrogenism Regulations|url=http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_3759_FINAL.pdf|access-date=15 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160816180459/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_3759_FINAL.pdf|archive-date=16 August 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Court of Arbitration for Sport|title=Chand v. IAAF - Interim award|url=http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/award_internet.pdf|access-date=15 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170704221029/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/award_internet.pdf|archive-date=4 July 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Dutee Chand, Female Sprinter With High Testosterone Level, Wins Right to Compete|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/sports/international/dutee-chand-female-sprinter-with-high-male-hormone-level-wins-right-to-compete.html?_r=1|work=The New York Times| date=27 July 2015 |access-date=15 August 2016| last1=Branch | first1=John }}</ref> This deadline was extended by two months by the CAS after an agreement between the parties.<ref>{{cite news|title=Dutee Chand to run in World Championships, gets favourable order from CAS|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/more-sports/athletics/dutee-chand-to-run-in-world-championships-gets-favourable-order-from-cas/articleshow/59824283.cms|work=The Times of India|access-date=29 July 2017}}</ref> In January 2018 the CAS suspended the case for six months, asking the IAAF to clarify whether it intended to replace the disputed regulations with new rules which would not affect Chand's events. If the IAAF were to modify its rules the case would terminate. The original regulations remain suspended.<ref>{{cite web|author=Court of Arbitration for Sport|title=The application of the IAAF hyperandrogenism regulations remain suspended|url=http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_3759_Jan_2018.pdf|access-date=20 January 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180121072515/http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_3759_Jan_2018.pdf|archive-date=21 January 2018|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Singh |first=Navneet |title=Advantage Dutee Chand as CAS suspends world athletics body's gender policy|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/other-sports/advantage-dutee-chand-as-cas-suspends-world-athletics-body-s-gender-policy/story-ygsRmsOtEpvmCasjjgTuHJ.html|work=Hindustan Times|access-date=20 January 2018}}</ref> In 2019, the CAS upheld the new IAAF regulations regarding [[intersex]] athletes,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.worldathletics.org/news/press-release/questions-answers-iaaf-female-eligibility-reg|title = IAAF publishes briefing notes and Q&A on Female Eligibility Regulations &#124; PRESS-RELEASE &#124; World Athletics}}</ref> which require athletes with certain specific intersex conditions to reduce their testosterone in order to participate in certain women's competitions.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/48102479|title = Semenya loses appeal against IAAF rules|work = BBC Sport}}</ref>
* The court ruled in 2006 that [[Gibraltar Football Association|Gibraltar]] had valid grounds for its application to join [[UEFA]], forcing the organisation to hand it provisional membership. At the next [[UEFA Congress]], however, Gibraltar was overwhelmingly rejected in a vote due to lobbying from Spain, in defiance of the CAS ruling.<ref>{{cite news|title=Gibraltar have failed in their attempt to become a member of Uefa.|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/6302889.stm|work=BBC Sport|access-date=25 June 2012}}</ref> Gibraltar subsequently became a member of UEFA in 2013. In May 2016, CAS partially upheld Gibraltar's appeal against a decision by [[FIFA]] denying membership. The court did not grant FIFA membership but ruled that FIFA should grant a full membership as soon as possible.<ref>{{cite news|title=CAS tells Fifa to reconsider Gibraltar's membership 'without delay'|url=https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/02/cas-fifa-gibraltar-membership|work=The Guardian|access-date=17 June 2016}}</ref> Gibraltar was granted membership at the FIFA Congress held later the same month.<ref>{{cite news|title=Fifa: Kosovo and Gibraltar become members of world governing body|url=https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/36290169|work=BBC Sport|access-date=17 June 2016}}</ref>
* In 2010, the [[Irish Football Association | Irish Football Association (IFA)]] (the association of [[Northern Ireland]]) took its case to CAS after FIFA failed to prevent the [[Football Association of Ireland | Football Association of Ireland (FAI)]] (the association of the [[Republic of Ireland]]) from selecting Northern Irish-born players who had no blood link to the Republic.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/irish/8538702.stm IFA take case to CAS]</ref> The CAS ruled in favour of the FAI and FIFA by confirming that they were correctly applying the regulations.<ref>{{cite web|author=CAS/2010/A/2071|title=Irish Football Association v/ Football Association of Ireland, Daniel Kearns and FIFA|url=http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/2071.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160818233829/http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/2071.pdf|archive-date=18 August 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>
* In February 2020, [[Manchester City F.C.|Manchester City]] lodged an appeal to CAS against [[UEFA]]'s decision to ban the club from European competitions for two years and to fine it €30,000,000 for alleged breaches of [[Financial Fair Play]] and Club Licensing regulations. The ban was rescinded by CAS on 13 July 2020 after the panel decided that the club 'did not disguise equity funding as sponsorship contributions'. However, the club was fined 10 million Euros for failing to co-operate with UEFA investigatory chamber in the first instance which breached UEFA Club Licensing Regulations.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Manchester City overturn two-year ban from European competition on appeal to Cas |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53387306  |work=BBC Sport |date=13 July 2020 |access-date=2020-07-13}}</ref>
* In 2015, [[UEFA]] banned its former president [[Michel Platini]] from football-related activity for six years. CAS lowered the ban to four years. Platini's appeals to Swiss courts and the European Court of Human Rights were unsuccessful.<ref name="Ronay"/>

== Further reading ==

* Duval, Antoine (2021), Krisch, Nico (ed.), "[https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/entangled-legalities-beyond-the-state/seamstress-of-transnational-law/0C171D53E4BB0D3C540125673D43182B Seamstress of Transnational Law: How the Court of Arbitration for Sport Weaves the Lex Sportiva]", ''Entangled Legalities Beyond the State.'' Cambridge University Press, pp.&nbsp;260–288,

== Notes and references ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{Commons category|Court of Arbitration for Sport}}
* {{Official website|https://www.tas-cas.org/}}
** [https://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/news-detail/article/list-of-hearings-4.html Current hearing schedule]
* [http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/07/where_do_athletes_go_to_court.html "Where do athletes go to court?"] ''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]'', 1 July 2004

{{Portal bar|Olympics|Sports|Law|Switzerland}}
{{Olympic Games}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:International arbitration courts and tribunals]]
[[Category:Olympic organizations]]
[[Category:Sports law]]
[[Category:International sports organisations based in Switzerland]]
[[Category:Organisations based in Lausanne]]
[[Category:Sports organizations established in 1984]]