Fair trial in Sports Arbitration proceedings after Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland: Satisfecit to the CAS or Trojan horse in the castle? 

Fair trial in Sports Arbitration proceedings after Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland: Satisfecit to the CAS or Trojan horse in the castle? 

On 2 October 2018, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled in Mutu & Pechstein v. Switzerland that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is impartial and independent. The European Court has also highlighted that the CAS must, when demanded by parties, proceed to a public hearing in anti-doping matters.

ECHR, 2 October 2018, nos. 40575/10 and 67474/10, Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland

 

Anyone who ever assisted a party before the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) should be satisfied, if not thrilled, to discover the judgment issued by the European Court of Human Rights on 2 October 2018, in the long-expected case of Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland.[1] For the first time, the Court held Switzerland liable for a violation of the right to a fair trial sheltered by Article 6§1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), stemming from the way a CAS Panel arbitrated a sports matter in the Castle of Bethuzy.

The facts of these two cases are well-known by practitioners: in 2004, the English Football Association conducted anti-doping checks which showed cocaine traces in the sample provided by Mr Adrian Mutu,...

Why not join us?

Football Legal is an independent media publishing football law contents on a daily basis dedicated to all football law practitioners (lawyers, clubs, federations, intermediaries, football stakeholders, etc.).

Register today and stay tuned to the latest legal news.

Get started