Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2015 pp 93–110Cite as

CAS Provisional and Conservatory Measures and Other Options to Be Granted Interim Legal Relief

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Article R37 of the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration empowers the CAS to grant provisional and conservatory measures for parties bound by the Code. When deciding whether to grant such measures, the CAS reviews whether (a) the relief is necessary to protect the applicant from irreparable harm, (b) the likelihood of success on the merits of the claim and (c) whether the interests of the applicant outweigh those of the respondent. Despite the fact that under the terms of Article R37 of the Code, the parties seeking provisional and conservatory measures expressly waive their rights to request the same type of measures from the ordinary competent courts, jurisprudence shows that state courts at least have parallel competence. First and foremost, the general exclusion of legal protection in advance is not valid as the CAS system does not offer a protection similar to the state courts. Additionally, state courts can usually act faster than the CAS. If third parties are affected, the CAS has no competence whereas state courts can order provisional measures against third parties. Contrary to provisional measures issued by state courts, there is no possibility to appeal provisional measures ordered by the CAS. However, once the CAS has issued its arbitral award, interim legal relief can be requested at the Swiss Federal Tribunal.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    At the time of writing, the latest version of the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration dates from 1 March 2013, and Article R37 CAS Code reads as follow:

    “No party may apply for provisional or conservatory measures under these Procedural Rules before all internal legal remedies provided for in the rules of the federation or sports-body concerned have been exhausted.

    Upon filing of the request for provisional measures, the Applicant shall pay a non-refundable Court Office fee of Swiss francs 1000—without which CAS shall not proceed. The CAS Court Office fee shall not be paid again upon filing of the request for arbitration or of the statement of appeal in the same procedure.

    The President of the relevant Division, prior to the transfer of the file to the Panel, or thereafter the Panel may, upon application by a party, make an order for provisional or conservatory measures. In agreeing to submit any dispute subject to the ordinary arbitration procedure or to the appeal arbitration procedure to these Procedural Rules, the parties expressly waive their rights to request such measures from state authorities or tribunals.

    Should an application for provisional measures be filed, the President of the relevant Division or the Panel shall invite the other party (or parties) to express a position within ten days or within a shorter time limit if circumstances so require. The President of the relevant Division or the Panel shall issue an order on an expedited basis and shall first rule on the prima facie CAS jurisdiction. The Division President may terminate the arbitration procedure if he rules that the CAS clearly has no jurisdiction. In cases of utmost urgency, the President of the relevant Division, prior to the transfer of the file to the Panel, or thereafter the President of the Panel may issue an order upon mere presentation of the application, provided that the opponent is subsequently heard. When deciding whether to award preliminary relief, the President of the Division or the Panel, as the case may be, shall consider whether the relief is necessary to protect the applicant from irreparable harm, the likelihood of success on the merits of the claim, and whether the interests of the Applicant outweigh those of the Respondent(s).

    The procedure for provisional measures and the provisional measures already granted, if any, are automatically annulled if the party requesting them does not file a related request for arbitration within 10 days following the filing of the request for provisional measures (ordinary procedure) or any statement of appeal within the time limit provided by Article R49 of the Code (appeals procedure). Such time limits cannot be extended. Provisional and conservatory measures may be made conditional upon the provision of security.”

  2. 2.

    CAS ad hoc Division 02/004, Canadian Olympic Association v. ISU, Order of 14 February 2002.

  3. 3.

    Ibid.

  4. 4.

    Mavromati and Reeb 2015, p. 205. See also CAS 2011/A/2410, A v. IF & G., Order of 23 May 2011, para 28.

  5. 5.

    CAS 2008/A/1569, Kurten v. FEI, Order of 20 June 2008, para 6.4.2.

  6. 6.

    See CAS 2008/A/ 1656, PFC Botev 1912—Plovdiv AD v. BFU & Hristov, Award of 18 November 2008, para 3.9.

  7. 7.

    Schweizer 2011, ad Article 374 Swiss Code of Civil Procedure, para 10; also Civil Court of the Canton Tribunal Vaud MP 2011/22, Y. SA v. UEFA, Order of 27 September 2011, para IV.c).

  8. 8.

    CAS 98/202, Peristeri AC v. FIBA, Order of 13 July 1998, see Reeb 2002, pp. 750–751.

  9. 9.

    CAS 2012/A/2993, Liberia Football Association v. Confederation Africaine de Football (CAF), Order of 30 November 2012, para 49.

  10. 10.

    CAS 2004/A/780, Ch. Maicon Henning v. Prudentopolis SC & FIFA, Order of 6 January 2005, para 7.2.

  11. 11.

    CAS 2011/A/2360 & 2392, English Chess Federation and Georgian Chess Federation vs. Fédération Internationale des Echecs (FIDE), Order of 27 June 2011, Order of 27 June 2011, para 2.2.

  12. 12.

    CAS 2007/O/1440, P. v. C., Award of 21 October 2008, para 3.22.

  13. 13.

    CAS 2011/O/2627, L. v. K., Award of 6 June 2012, paras 3.2 and 3.3.

  14. 14.

    CAS 2000A/274, Susin v. FINA, Award of 19 October 2000, see Reeb 2002,p. 755; CAS 97/169, Menegotto v. FIC, Order of 15 May 1997, see Reeb 2002, p. 539.

  15. 15.

    SFT 4P.148/2006, decision of 10 January 2007; SFT 4A_612/2009, order of 7 December 2010.

  16. 16.

    CAS 98/190, HC Prilly v. LSHG, Order of 10 March 1998, see Reeb 2002, p. 747.

  17. 17.

    CAS 98/200, AEK Athenes & Slavia Prague v. UEFA, Award of 20 August 1999, see Reeb 2002, pp. 38 and 42.

  18. 18.

    CAS press release of 3 December 2003.

  19. 19.

    CAS 2003/O/460, Wüstenrot Salzburg v. Bukran, Award of 16 June 2003, para 5.3, cited verbatim in CAS 2003/O/486, Fulham v. OL, Award of 15 September 2003, para 13.

  20. 20.

    SFT 4A_636/2011, decision of 18 June 2012, para 2.3.2.

  21. 21.

    CAS 2006/A/1137, Cruzeiro Esporte Clube v. FIFA & PFC Krilja Sovetov, Order of 17 August 2006; CAS 2007/A/1370, FIFA v. Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD) & Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) & Mr Ricardo Lucas Dodô & CAS 2007/A/1376 WADA v. Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD) & Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) & Mr Ricardo Lucas Dodô, Order of 10 December 2007.

  22. 22.

    Article 261 et seq. Swiss Code of Civil Procedure.

  23. 23.

    CAS 2012/A/2802, Al-Masry FC v. EFA, Order of 31 May 2012, para 6.5.

  24. 24.

    CAS Ad Hoc Division OG 02/004, Canadian Olympic Association v. ISU, Award of 15 February 2002, see Reeb 2004, pp. 592–593.

  25. 25.

    CAS 2010/A/2236, D v. ADoP, Order of 2 November 2010, para 6.4.

  26. 26.

    CAS 2005/A/990, Pobyedonostsev v. IIHF, Order of 19 January 2006, para 8.2 (Award of 24 August 2006, para 7).

  27. 27.

    CAS 2001/A/328, F. v. ISOD, IPC, DS/USA, Order of 3 August 2001, see iReeb 2004, pp. 633–634.

  28. 28.

    CAS 2006/A/1137, Cruzeiro Esporte Clube v. FIFA & PFC Krilja Sovetov, Order of 17 August 2006, para 8.4. See also SFT 126 I 207.

  29. 29.

    CAS Media Release of 11 December 2015, “The 90-day provisional suspension imposed on Michel Platini remains in force, but FIFA is ordered not to extend it”. Available at http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_Platini_FIFA_1112_final.pdf. Accessed 9 March 2016.

  30. 30.

    CAS 2000/A/274, Susin v. FINA, see Reeb 2004, p.757; and CAS 2001/A/324, Addo & Van Nistelrooij v. UEFA, Order of 15 March 2001, see Reeb 2004, pp. 628 and 631.

  31. 31.

    CAS 2011/A/2561, FRB v. AIBA, Award of 20 September 2011, para 6.11.

  32. 32.

    CAS 2008/A/1677, A. Enam v. Club Al Attihad Tripoli, Order of 15 December 2008, paras 5.4. ff.

  33. 33.

    CAS 2006/A/1141, M. v. FIFA & FC Krijla Sovetov, Order of 31 August 2006, para 7.3.

  34. 34.

    See also in this regard the jurisprudence of the SFT 104 Ia 408, para 4.

  35. 35.

    CAS 2001/A/324, Addo & Van Nistelrooij v. UEFA, see Reeb 2004, p. 631.

  36. 36.

    CAS 2001/A/238, F v. ISOD, IPC, DS/USA.

  37. 37.

    CAS 2006/A/1137, Cruzeiro v. FIFA & PFC, paras 19 and 20.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., para 8.5.

  39. 39.

    CAS 2010/A/2500, Amateur Boxing Association of Thailand v. AIBA, Order of 15 July 2011.

  40. 40.

    CAS 2014/A/3471, FC DNIPRO v. FFU, Award of 18 February 2014, para 6.5. In this case, the Division President denied the request for provisional measures because it would affect third parties and it would not be possible to issue a decision affecting these parties without giving them the opportunity to be heard.

  41. 41.

    CAS 2008/A/1525, A.FC. v. HFF & O. FC, Order on Request for Provisional Measures of 21 April 2008, para 78.

  42. 42.

    CAS 2011/A/ 2603, FC CFR 1907 Cluj SA v. RFF and SC Association FC v. Mateianu, Award of 4 November 2011, para 7.9.

  43. 43.

    UNCITRAL, Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958 (“New York Convention”).

  44. 44.

    Rigozzi and Tissot 2012, para 29.

  45. 45.

    Civil Tribunal of the Sarine, X, Y, Z v Fédération Suisse de Basketball, City Fribourg Basketball Club, Judgement of 20 June 1997, in Revue Fribourgeoise de Jurisprudence 1998, p. 51, at p. 56.

  46. 46.

    Even though the CAS Code foresees extremely short deadlines for challenging the arbitrators such challenge becomes very difficult if the person(s) within the ICAS deciding upon the challenge of the arbitrator are potentially not impartial and not independent as well. This has led to a case where the appellant has requested that the Panel shall be composed by state courts. However, as the Panel was somehow composed the Swiss Federal Tribunal held that the appeal against the composition of the arbitral tribunal can only be filed against the final award; see SFT 4A_586/2014, decision of 25 November 2014.

  47. 47.

    Civil Court of the Canton Tribunal Vaud, MP 2011/22, Y. SA v. UEFA, 27 September 2011, para VI.c).

  48. 48.

    Cited in Martens 2001, p. 65.

  49. 49.

    Cited in CAS 98/218, Hall v. FINA, Award of 27 May 1999.

  50. 50.

    SFT 133 III 235, at p. 243.

  51. 51.

    Article 77(1) a Swiss Federal Tribunal Court Act in connection with Article 190(2) PILA.

  52. 52.

    SFT 4A_582/2009, decision of 13 April 2009, para 2.3.3.

  53. 53.

    Articles 319a and 321 Swiss Code of Civil Procedure.

  54. 54.

    Article 320 Swiss Code of Civil Procedure.

  55. 55.

    Article 98 Swiss Federal Tribunal Court Act.

  56. 56.

    Article 190(2) PILA.

  57. 57.

    Article 103(3) Swiss Federal Tribunal Court Act.

  58. 58.

    Article 104 Swiss Federal Tribunal Court Act.

  59. 59.

    SFT 4A_612/2009, decision of 10 February 2010.

  60. 60.

    SFT 4A_134/2012, decision of 16 July 2012.

References

  • Mavromati D, Reeb M (2015) The code of the court of arbitration for sport: commentary, cases, materials. Kluwer Law International BV, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Martens D-R (2001) Übernahme von Dopingsperren anderer Verbände, OLG München: 26.10.2000 U (K) 3209/00. Zeitschrift für Sport und Recht (Issue 2) 65

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigozzi A, Tissot R (2012) La pertinence du “consentement” dans l’arbitrage du Tribunal Arbitral du Sport. Jusletter, 16 July 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeb M (2002) Digest of CAS Awards II 1998–2000. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeb M (2004) Digest of CAS awards III 2001–2003. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer P (2011) Procédure arbitrale. In: Bohnet F, Haldy J. Jeandin N, Schweizer P, Tappy D (eds) Code de procédure civile commenté, Helbing Lichtenhahn, Basel, pp 1429–1456

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK

    Ian Blackshaw

  2. Pachmann Rechtsanwälte, Zurich, Switzerland

    Thilo Pachmann

Authors
  1. Ian Blackshaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thilo Pachmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thilo Pachmann .

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

© 2016 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Blackshaw, I., Pachmann, T. (2016). CAS Provisional and Conservatory Measures and Other Options to Be Granted Interim Legal Relief. In: Duval, A., Rigozzi, A. (eds) Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2015. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-129-6_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-129-6_5

  • Published:

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

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-128-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-129-6

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation