Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Applicability of Swiss Law in Doping Cases Before the CAS and the Swiss Federal Tribunal

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2016

Part of the book series: Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration ((YISA))

  • 657 Accesses

Abstract

The WADA and the CAS are both foundations under Swiss private law and have their registered seat in Lausanne, Switzerland. In addition to WADA and CAS, the majority of international sports federations are equally based in Switzerland. Although the adoption of the WADA Code in 2003 brought about a harmonization of the different anti-doping regulations and the creation of an international regime for anti-doping rule violations, Swiss law continues to play a major role in the adjudication of doping-related procedures before the CAS. The importance of Swiss law is undoubtedly more evident when it comes to the procedural aspects, since the CAS is based in Switzerland and has to comply with the more general legal framework governing international arbitral institutions seated in Switzerland. When it comes to the law applicable to the merits, Swiss law applies “subsidiarily” in all cases where the federation whose body issued the appealed decision is seated in Switzerland. This paper aims to determine the relevance of Swiss law in both the procedure and the merits of doping-related cases, through some examples at the different stages of the anti-doping proceedings before the CAS and before the SFT.

The paper draws heavily on a previous, much shorter version prepared with Prof. Antonio Rigozzi for the LawInSport blog. Any errors in the current version are the author’s alone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See more on the history of CAS in Mavromati and Reeb 2015, pp. 1–15.

  2. 2.

    SFT 4P.217/1992, decision of 15 March 1993. In this case, the SFT recognized the CAS as an arbitral institution but also highlighted the numerous links which existed at the time between the CAS and the IOC, mostly in terms of financing and modification of the CAS Statutes by the IOC.

  3. 3.

    SFT 4P.267-270/2002, decision of 27 May 2003.

  4. 4.

    See, e.g. cases where the CAS hearing was held in another country (see, e.g. the Essendon CAS award which is further analysed below; CAS 2015/A/4059, WADA v. Th. Bellchambers et al., AFL & ASADA, Award of 11 January 2016).

  5. 5.

    This means that all legal consequences deriving from the fact that WADA has its registered seat in Lausanne are regulated under Swiss law (and not, e.g. Canadian law) and, more specifically, Article 80–89 CC.

  6. 6.

    See also the Purpose, Scope and Organization of the World Anti-Doping Program and the Code in the 2015 WADA Code, p. 11.

  7. 7.

    Articles 13.1.3 and 13.2.3 WADA Code (2015). See also Morgan 2013, pp. 341–351.

  8. 8.

    For international arbitrations, in case of domestic arbitration, the relevant provisions of the CCP apply.

  9. 9.

    As the lex loci arbitri.

  10. 10.

    Governed, for appeals proceedings—including doping cases, by Article R58 CAS Code. See, e.g. CAS 2014/A/3639, A. Muralidharan v. Indian NADA et al., Award of 8 April 2015, para 58, where the Panel held that “the NADA ADR applies in principle to the merits of this proceeding and where needed, the law of India. As to procedural issues, however, the procedural rules of the CAS Code, supplemented if necessary by Swiss procedural law, shall be applied”.

  11. 11.

    The exclusivity of CAS—and the appeal to the SFT was confirmed in the Raguz v. Sullivan (2000) NSWCA 240: in this well-known case, the Australian New South Wales’ Court of Appeal found it did not have jurisdiction to rule on an appeal of an athlete against a CAS award (where all arbitrators were Australians and the hearing took place in Sydney) see also Vetter 2008.

  12. 12.

    Mavromati 2017, p. 17.

  13. 13.

    See in particular Article V NYC.

  14. 14.

    See Fig. 1.

  15. 15.

    SFT 4A_234/2010, decision of 29 October 2010, para 3.2.2. Article R34 CAS Code.

  16. 16.

    Notwithstanding the so-called duty of curiosity of the parties’ counsel, arbitrators should systematically disclose a maximum of information before their appointment. See also SFT 4A_110/2012, decision of 9 October 2012. See also some criticisms on the “duty of curiosity” in Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi 2015, p. 217, paras 4.128–4.131 and p. 468 f., paras 8.137–8.138.

  17. 17.

    In this case, the University Professor who was challenged (Prof. Ulrich Haas) was Chair of the Group of Independent Observers at the 2004 Olympic Games and Member of the Expert Group for the 2009 WADC.

  18. 18.

    SFT 4A_234/2010, decision of 29 October 2010. See some critical comments in Beffa 2011.

  19. 19.

    Rigozzi 2012, p. 446.

  20. 20.

    SFT 4P.217/1992, decision of 15 March 1993. See also Orelli 2013, p. 48 f.

  21. 21.

    For the large scope of arbitrability under Swiss law see also (a non-doping-related judgment) SFT 4A_388/2012, decision of 18 March 2013.

  22. 22.

    SFT 4A_654/2011, decision of 23 May 2012; SFT 118 II 353.

  23. 23.

    While the form requirements of Article 178 para 1 PILA should be respected, the SFT examines with ‘bienveillance’ the consensual character of arbitration in sports, mostly in the arbitration clause by reference, see SFT 4P.172/2006, decision of 22 March 2007 and SFT 4A_460/2008, decision of 12 January 2009, para 6.2.

  24. 24.

    On the Player Entry Forms as valid arbitration agreements see also, generally SFT 4A_358/2009, decision of 6 November 2009.

  25. 25.

    See the Wilhelmshaven decision of the German Federal Tribunal, issued on 20 September 2016 (Wilhelmshaven e.V. v. Norddeutschen Fussballverband, II ZR 25/15). In this case, however, the subject matter of the dispute was not a doping-related matter but rather a sanction for not complying with a CAS award.

  26. 26.

    SFT 133 III 235. See also, generally, SFT 4P.267-270/2002, decision of 27 May 2003.

  27. 27.

    SFT 4P.230/2000, decision of 7 February 2001, para 2.

  28. 28.

    SFT 4A_428/2011, decision of 13 February 2012. See also Rigozzi 2012, p. 448 f.

  29. 29.

    SFT 4A_103/2011, decision of 20 September 2011, para 3.2.1. See also SFT 4A_246/2011, decision of 7 November 2011, para 2.2.3.

  30. 30.

    The SFT has admitted two motions to set aside a doping-related CAS award based on jurisdictional grounds: SFT 4A_358/2009, decision of 06 November 2009; SFT 4A_456/2009, decision of 3 May 2010.

  31. 31.

    SFT 4C_44/1996, decision of 31 October 1996; SFT 4P.230/2000, decision of 7 February 2001, para 2; SFT 4A_460/2008, decision of 9 January 2009.

  32. 32.

    See the analysis on the scope of the arbitration agreement included in a Player Entry Form in SFT 4A_358/2009, decision of 6 November 2009, para 3.2.3.

  33. 33.

    CAS 2015/A/4059, WADA v. Th. Bellchambers et al., Australian Football League (AFL) & Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), Award of 11 January 2016. The facts can be summarized as follows: after investigations conducted by the Australian Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) and WADA over the legality of its supplements program in 2012, the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal had initially found the 34 players not guilty of anti-doping offences. WADA appealed against this decision to the CAS, which imposed a two-year suspension upon the players (seventeen still-active AFL players missed the 2016 season following the CAS award).

  34. 34.

    SFT 4A_102/2016, decision of 27 September 2016, para 3.3. On the reservations to the order of procedure, see SFT4A_202/2016, decision of 3 August 2016, para 3.2; SFT 4A_612/2009, decision of 10 February 2010, para 3.1.2.

  35. 35.

    BGE 138 III 29, para 2.3.2, p. 37; SFT 4A_102/2016, decision of 27 September 2016, para 3.4.

  36. 36.

    BGE 138 III 29, para 2.3; BGE 131 III 467, para 1.2.

  37. 37.

    SFT 4A_102/2016, decision of 27 September 2016, para 3.4. The players did not claim that they would not have opted for CAS had they known that it was not possible to restrict the CAS’s power of review.

  38. 38.

    Von Segesser and Schramm 2015, p. 957.

  39. 39.

    SFT 120 II 172, decision of 19 April 1994, para 175. See SFT 4A_220/2007, decision of 21 September 2007, para 7.2. See Coccia 2013, p. 5 f.

  40. 40.

    The claim was rejected as inadmissible for lack of legal interest, see SFT 4A_730/2012, decision of 29 April 2013, para 4.

  41. 41.

    Knoll 2013, p. 111.

  42. 42.

    For example CAS 2005/A/951, Cañas v ATP Tour, revised award of 23 May 2007; SFT 4P.172/2006, decision of 22 March 2007. This is the only challenge against a doping-related CAS award that was admitted by the SFT based on Article 190 para 2 d PILA.

  43. 43.

    See Article 8 (8.1–8.5) of the 2015 WADA Code, which includes a set of rules in order to ensure that Anti-Doping Organizations provide a fair, timely and impartial hearing process—also in accordance with Article 6(1) ECHR.

  44. 44.

    See, e.g. SFT 4P.167-170/2002, decision of 27 May 2003, para 4.2.2.2. The specific issue of admissibility of evidence within the scope of procedural public policy is separately examined below; see “Swiss law and burden of proof/standard of proof and evidentiary issues in doping cases”.

  45. 45.

    SFT 4A_386/2010, decision of 16 February 2011. The issue of ne bis in idem is also separately examined below.

  46. 46.

    SFT 132 III 389, para 2.2.3 (X v. Y).

  47. 47.

    SFT 4A_148/2006, decision of 10 January 2007, para 7.3.2.

  48. 48.

    SFT 4A_620/2009, decision of 15 March 2010, para 4.3.1. In this case, however, the SFT rejected the allegations of violation of these principles (i.e. lex mitior and non-retroactivity) before determining whether their violation would amount to a violation of substantive public policy.

  49. 49.

    SFT 4A_624/2009, decision of 12 April 2010, para 3.2.1. In this case, the athlete (who was suspended for life by the CAS), claimed that the Panel had violated substantive public policy in violating the principle reformation in pejus. The SFT left this question open because the applicable version of the CAS Code explicitly allowed, in its Article R55, for counterclaims (the possibility to file counterclaims with the answer in accordance with Article R55 was subsequently removed from the CAS Code).

  50. 50.

    Although the first—and only—case where the Federal Tribunal annulled a CAS award based on this ground was a non-doping case (SFT 4A_558/2011, decision of 27 March 2012, para 4.3.2), the protection of personality rights is also a major issue that is taken into consideration by the Federal Tribunal within the context of doping-related cases.

  51. 51.

    It must be noted that, according to Swiss law, questions related to the burden of proof fall within the scope of the substantive public policy, while the admissibility of evidence is part of the procedural public policy. See also Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi 2005, para 8.193, p. 491.

  52. 52.

    SFT 4A_362/2013, decision of 27 March 2014, para 3.4.

  53. 53.

    SFT 4A_488/2011, decision of 18 June 2012, para 6.2; SFT 4A_612/2009, decision of 10 of February 2010, para 6.3.2; SFT 5P.83/1999, decision of 31 March 1999, para 3d; SFT 4P.217/1992, decision of 15 March, 1993, para 8b).

  54. 54.

    More generally on evidentiary issues, the IBA rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (2010) can also be used as guidance by the arbitral tribunal. Under Article 184(2) PILA, although arbitral tribunals lack coercive powers, they can request the assistance of state courts in order to gather evidence.

  55. 55.

    See, e.g. SFT 4P.267-270/2002, decision of 27 May 2003, para 5.2.3, where the appellants alleged a violation of procedural public policy because the witnesses were allowed to attend the hearing before they were heard, what would imply that their testimonies would be biased.

  56. 56.

    SFT 4A_362/2013, decision of 27 March 2014, para 3.2.2. See SFT 4A_448/2013, decision of 27 March 2013, para 3.2.2. See CAS 2010/A/2267, Metalist et al. v. FFU, Award of 2 August 2013. See also Rigozzi and Quinn 2014, p. 11.

  57. 57.

    It is also possible, under specific conditions, to have anonymous witnesses, see CAS 2009/A/1920, FK Pobeda, A. Zabrcanec, N. Zdraveski v. UEFA, Award of 15 April 2010, para 72. Anonymous witnesses do not breach the right to be heard (see SFT 6S.59/2006, decision of 2 November 2006; SFT 133 I 33) when their statements complement other evidence already provided. The SFT had indeed held that if witness statements are provided for by the procedural rules (like in Article R44 CAS Code), it would infringe the Panel’s power to freely assess the evidence, including written witness statements if this was not allowed. See also CAS 2011/A/2384 & 2386, IF v. C. & NF, Award of 6 February 2012, paras 72 ff. and for an analysis on the admissibility of protected witnesses under Swiss law, see Mavromati and Reeb 2015, p. 327.

  58. 58.

    SFT 4A_386/2010, decision of 16 February 2011, para 9.3.1.

  59. 59.

    See also CAS 2007/A/1396 & 1402, WADA v. RFEC & A. Valverde, Award of 31 May 2010, para 118. It must be noted that the principle of ne bis in idem can also be applied in civil proceedings, see Oberhammer and Nägeli 2013, no. 39 ff.

  60. 60.

    CAS 2013/A/3256, Fenerbahçe SK v. UEFA, Award of 28 August 2013, para 156; CAS 2007/A/1396 & 1402, WADA v. RFEC & A. Valverde, Award of 31 May 2010, para 119; CAS 2008/A/1677, Alexis Enam v. Club Al Ittihad Tripoli, Award of 20 May 2009. See also Piquerez 2006, para 1541.

  61. 61.

    CAS 2015/A/4319, Bulgarian Weightlifting Federation (BWF) v. IWF, Award of 15 February 2016, para 71. See also CAS 2013/A/3256, Fenerbahçe SK v. UEFA, Award of 28 August 2013, para 156.

  62. 62.

    The “Osaka Rule” was a rule adopted by the IOC that provided that “Any person who has been sanctioned with a suspension of more than six months by any anti-doping organization for any violation of any anti-doping regulations may not participate, in any capacity, in the next edition of the Games of the Olympiad and of the Olympic Winter Games following the date of expiry of such suspension”. This rule was found to violate the principle of ne bis in idem and was abolished following a CAS ruling, see CAS 2011/O/2422, USOC v. IOC, Award of 4 October 2011. CAS 2015/A/4319, BWF v. IWF, Award of 15 February 2016, para 77.

  63. 63.

    SFT 4A_683/2016, decision of 17 February 2015, para 2.1.

  64. 64.

    CAS 2015/A/4129, D. Demirev et al. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF), Award of 6 October 2015, para 49.

  65. 65.

    Ibid., para 58.

  66. 66.

    While the parties to an arbitration agreement may limit the jurisdiction of state courts with respect to provisional measures, it is questionable to which extent this is possible, in particular in sports arbitration, see the analysis in Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi 2015, p. 338 f., paras 6.105–6.108.

  67. 67.

    CAS 2014/A/3571, A. Powell v. Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO), Order of 7 July 2015, paras 6.2 ff. See also CAS 2013/A/3199, Rayo Vallecano v. RFEC, Order of 11 July 2013; CAS 2010/A/2071, IFA v. FAI et al., Order of 10 June 2010. See also Patocchi 2012, pp. 68–72.

  68. 68.

    Otherwise, it cannot be allowed by the Division President or the Panel, see, e.g. CAS 2016/A/4708, Belarus Canoe Association & Belarusian Senior Men’s Canoe and Kayak team members v. International Canoe Federation (ICF), Award of 23 January 2017, para 81.

  69. 69.

    CAS 2014/A/3571, A. Powell v. Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO), Order of 7 July 2015, paras 6.2 ff.

  70. 70.

    CAS 2007/A/1370 & 1376, FIFA v. STJD & CBF & R. Dodô & WADA v. STJD & CBF & R.

    Dodô, Order on provisional measures of 10 December 2007, para 6 f. See also CAS 2013/A/3199, Rayo Vallecano de Madrid SAD v. RFEF, Order of 11 July 2013.

  71. 71.

    CAS 2008/A/1569, K. v. FEI, Award of 2 February 2009 and CAS 2008/A/1453, Elkin Soto Jaramillo & FSV Mainz 05 v/ CD Once Caldas & FIFA, Award of 10 July 2008, para 7.1. Inversely, there is no irreparable harm if the dispute has been ongoing for a longer period (in a non-doping case, see CAS 2014/A/3828, Indian Hockey Federation (IHF) v. International Hockey Federation (FIH) & Hockey India, Order of June 2015, para 29).

  72. 72.

    CAS 2015/A/3925, T. Smikle v. JADCO, Order of 13 March 2015, para 6.9.

  73. 73.

    CAS 2015/A/3899, F. v. Athletics Kenya, Order on provisional measures of 20 February 2015, para 18.

  74. 74.

    CAS 2010/A/2113; CAS 2011/A/2615, Thibaut Fauconnet v. International Skating Union (ISU), Award of 19 April 2012; CAS 2012/A/2943, Bulgarian Chess Federation v. FIDE, Award of 8 April 2013. See also CAS 2015/A/3925, T. Smikle v. JADCO, Order of 13 March 2015, para 6.12.

  75. 75.

    Mavromati and Reeb 2015, p. 211.

  76. 76.

    CAS 2015/A/3925, T. Smikle v. JADCO, Order of 13 March 2015, para 6.14.

  77. 77.

    See Berti and Schnyder 2013, para 25. See Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi 2015, paras 8.92 ff, p. 452. See also Coccia 2013, pp. 5 ff.

  78. 78.

    The criteria are, therefore, very similar to the ones applied by CAS Panels in their assessment of requests for provisional measures.

  79. 79.

    Mavromati and Reeb 2015, p. 370.

  80. 80.

    SFT 4A_444-446/2016, Order of 8 August 2016 and Judgment of 17 February 2017.

  81. 81.

    SFT 4A_470/2016 (RPC), Order of 30 August 2016. The final SFT decision has not been rendered yet (April 2017).

  82. 82.

    From a wide selection of cases, see, e.g. CAS 2015/A/4160, WADA v. IWF & D. Gogia, Award of 17 March 2016, para 50; see also CAS 2014/A/3734, WADA v. V. Lukanin & IWF, Award of 16 December 2014, para 34.

  83. 83.

    There are some International Federations that are based in another country, see also CAS 2014/A/3685, E. Sachenbacher-Stehle v. International Biathlon Union (IBU), Award of 4 February 2015, para 50, where the Panel subsidiarily applied Austrian law (law of the country where the IBU is domiciled). See, however, CAS 2015/A/4049, R. A. Begaj v. IWF, Award of 5 October 2015, para 61 f. Although the IWF has its seat in Hungary, it is an association under Swiss law; therefore, the panel applied Swiss law subsidiarily (and the parties confirmed such law in their respective submissions).

  84. 84.

    See, e.g. CAS 2016/O/4702, International Association of International Federations (IAAF) v. All Russia Athletic Federation (ARAF) & M. Dyldin, Award of 6 January 2017, para 61; CAS 2016/O/4504, IAAF v. ARAF & V. Mokhnev, Award of 23 December 2016, where the Panels applied the IAAF ADR and Monegasque law. See also CAS 2015/A/4063, WADA v. Czech Anti-Doping Committee (CADC) & R. Machura Jr., Award of 5 November 2015, para 74 f. (Czech law); CAS 2014/A/3820, WADA v. D. Robinson & JADCO, Award of 14 July 2015, para 68 f., where the Panel applied the Jamaican ADR and, subsidiarily, Jamaican law. See also CAS 2014/A/3868, WADA v. Bhupender Singh and NADA of India, Award of 23 November 2015, para 39 (Indian law).

  85. 85.

    See CAS 2006/A/1025, M. Puerta v. ITF, Award of 12 July 2006, para 10.6–10.8, where the CAS applied Swiss law even though the ITF ADR were expressly subject to English law.

  86. 86.

    CAS 2016/A/4745, Russian Paralympic Committee (RPC) v. International Paralympic Committee (IPC), Award of 30 August 2016, para 31.

  87. 87.

    See the Introduction to the WADA Code (2015), p. 7 “These sport-specific rules and procedures, aimed at enforcing anti-doping rules in a global and harmonized way (…)”.

  88. 88.

    See, more generally, Baddeley 1994, p. 108.

  89. 89.

    In this respect, sports federations must exercise their decisional power according to the mandatory provisions of Swiss law of associations and are limited by the obligation to respect public policy (which includes the personality rights and general principles of law, see also below).

  90. 90.

    CAS 2014/A/3604, R. Freibergs v. IOC, Award of 17 December 2014, para 80.

  91. 91.

    CAS 2015/A/4163, N. Dobud v. Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA), Award of 15 March 2016, para 63.

  92. 92.

    In this case, the athlete contended that there was a case of mistaken identity and that the Doping Control Officer mistakenly identified another person as the athlete. See CAS 2015/A/4163, N. Dobud v. FINA, Award of 15 March 2016, para 87.

  93. 93.

    Article 27 CC (prohibiting excessive commitments) reads as follows: “1. No person can wholly or partially renounce his capacity to have rights and to effect legal transactions. 2. No person can alienate his personal liberty nor impose any restrictions on his own enjoyment thereof which are contrary to law and morality.” Article 28 CC (prohibiting excessive infringements) reads as follows: “1. Where anyone suffers an illicit infringement of his personality rights, he can apply to the judge for his protection against any person participating in such infringement. 2. An infringement is illicit, except when justified by the victim's consent, by an overriding private or public interest, or by the law”.

  94. 94.

    Morgan 2013, p. 4. See also SFT 4A_558/2011, decision of 27 March 2012, para 6.1; SFT 134 Ill 193.

  95. 95.

    Justification is possible by law, by the athlete’s consent or by the existence of an overriding interest. See Baddeley 2008, p. 711. See also SFT 134 III 193, para 4.6.3.2.2 on the overriding interest of the fight against doping as a justification for the validity of disciplinary sanctions.

  96. 96.

    See, e.g. CAS 2014/A/3642, E. Salkic v. FUR & Prof. FC Arsenal, Award of 8 April 2015; CAS 2015/A/4286, S. Plaku v. Wroclawski Klub S. S. Wroclaw, Award of 29 July 2016; CAS 2011/A/2426, A. Adamu v. FIFA, Award of 24 February 2012; CAS 2013/A/3091 & 3092 & 3093, FC Nantes v. FIFA & Al Nasr SC, Award of 2 July 2013 (non-doping cases).

  97. 97.

    CAS 2005/C/976 & 986, FIFA & WADA, Advisory Opinion of 21 April 2006, para 124.

  98. 98.

    See, e.g. the provisions related to the elimination or reduction of the sanction for non-fault or negligence or for non-significant fault or negligence Article 10.5 (2015) WADA Code.

  99. 99.

    CAS 2005/A/830, Squizzato v. FINA, Award of 15 July 2005, para 10.24.

  100. 100.

    CAS 2005/C/976 & 986, FIFA & WADA, Advisory Opinion of 21 April 2006, para 139.

  101. 101.

    CAS 2006/A/1025, M. Puerta v. ITF, Award of 12 July 2006; CAS 2010/A/2268, I. v. FIA, Award of 15 September 2011.

  102. 102.

    CAS 2016/A/4745, RPC v. IPC, Award of 30 August 2016, para 73 ff.

  103. 103.

    Ibid., para 81.

  104. 104.

    Ibid., para 82.

  105. 105.

    Ibid., para 83.

  106. 106.

    Ibid., para 85 f. Also, as was confirmed in CAS OG 16/09, RWF v. IWF, Award of 5 August 2016, it is possible to suspend a member federation for breach of its Anti-Doping Policy and based on the “reliable information” of the IP Report.

  107. 107.

    CAS 2016/A/4745, RPC v. IPC, Award of 30 August 2016, para 90.

References

  • Baddeley M (1994) L’Association sportive face au droit – Les limites de son autonomie. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley M (2008) Droits de la personnalité et arbitrage: le dilemme des sanctions sportives. In: Gauch P (ed) Mélanges en l’honneur de Pierre Tercier. Schulthess, Geneva, pp. 707–725

    Google Scholar 

  • Beffa L (2011) Challenge of international arbitration awards in Switzerland for lack of independence and/or impartiality of an arbitrator – Is it time to change the approach? ASA Bull 29:598–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Berti S V, Schnyder AK (2013) Ad Article 191. In: Honsell et al (eds) IPRG Kommentar, 3rd edn. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Coccia M (2013) The jurisprudence of the Swiss Federal Tribunal in challenges against CAS awards. CAS Bulletin (issue 2) 2–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann-Kohler G, Rigozzi A (2015) International Arbitration: Law and Practice in Switzerland. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoll J (2013) Ad Article 182 PILA. In: Arroyo M (ed) Arbitration in Switzerland – The Practitioner’s Guide. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp. 101–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavromati D, Reeb M (2015) The Code of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: Commentary, Cases & Materials. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavromati D (2017) The Role of the Swiss Federal Tribunal and its impact on CAS Arbitration. ABA Special Issue on the Olympic Games, 1:1:17–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan M (2013) The Relevance of Swiss Law in Doping Disputes. Revue de droit Suisse 3:341–351

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P, Nägeli G (2013) Ad Article 236. In: Oberhammer P, Domej T, Haas U (eds) Kurzkommentar ZPO, 2nd edn. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Orelli M (2013) Ad Article 177 PILA. In: Arroyo M (ed) Arbitration in Switzerland – The Practitioner’s Guide. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp. 48–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Patocchi P (2012) Provisional Measures in International Arbitration. In: Bernasconi M (ed) International Sports Law and Jurisprudence of the CAS. Weblaw, Zurich, pp. 68–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Piquerez G (2006) Traité de procédure pénale suisse, 2nd edn. Schulthess, Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigozzi A (2012) International Sports Arbitration: Why does Swiss Law Matter? In: Rigozzi A, Sprumont D, Hafner Y (eds) Citius, Altius, Fortius – Mélanges en l’honneur de Denis Oswald. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel, pp. 439–461

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigozzi A, Quinn B (2014) Evidentiary Issues Before CAS. In: Bernasconi M (ed) International Sports Law and Jurisprudence of the CAS, 4th CAS & SAV/FSA Conference Lausanne 2012. Weblaw, Bern, pp. 1–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Vetter M (2008) The CAS An Arbitral Institution with its Seat in Switzerland, Sports Law eJournal http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=slej. Accessed 21 April 2017

  • Von Segesser G, Schramm D (2015) Ad Art. 190 of the Swiss Private International Law Act. In: Mistelis L (ed) Concise International Arbitration, Wolters Kluwer, 2nd edn. Alphen aan den Rijn, pp. 957 ff

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Managing Counsel at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Despina Mavromati

Authors
  1. Despina Mavromati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Despina Mavromati .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ASSER International Sports Law Centre, T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Antoine Duval

  2. Faculté de droit, Université de Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

    Antonio Rigozzi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mavromati, D. (2017). Applicability of Swiss Law in Doping Cases Before the CAS and the Swiss Federal Tribunal. In: Duval, A., Rigozzi, A. (eds) Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2016. Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/15757_2017_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/15757_2017_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-236-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-237-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation