Swiss Arbitration Decisions

Use double-quotes to match a sentence or a date. Format dates as follows: "month dd, yyyy". (eg.: "february 23, 2007")
Found 16 result(s)
July 8, 2009

In 2007, a swimmer tested positive to an illegal substance during the World Military Swimming Championship in Hyderabad (India). Disciplinary proceedings followed and the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”), which ordered results made by the swimmer between October 2007 and August 2008 cancelled. He was also disqualified for two years from February 6, 2008.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_10/2009
Original language: 
Italian
Published: 
3 SwissIntArbRep 305 (2009)
Parties
Appellant: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
November 6, 2009

The decision is an interesting one because the Federal Tribunal annulled the jurisdictional award issued by the CAS on June 23, 2009. Those of you who receive Hansjörg Stutzer’s excellent newsletter will have read his comments and the case is most likely to be discussed in further legal writing in the months ahead.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_358/2009
Original language: 
German
Published: 
30 ASA Bull 166 (2011)
also see 3 SwissIntArbRep 495 (2009)
Parties
Appellant: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
January 9, 2009

Dodô v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), to which Hansjörg Stutzer referred in his criticism of the Busch decision, involved the Brazilian player Ricardo Dodô . He tested positive after a random doping check in June 2007 and was suspended for 120 days by the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF).

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_460/2008
Original language: 
German
Published: 
27 ASA Bull 540 (2009)
also see 3 SwissIntArbRep 41 (2009)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
January 6, 2020

In this overly publicized and quite interesting case, involving the Chinese Swimmer Sun Yang (the Athlete) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the Athlete was accused of an antidoping rule violation due to the unsuccessful attempt to take blood and urine samples during an unannounced test carried out at the Athlete’s home in September 2018. Even though the Swimmer was cleared by his federation’s (i.e.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_287/2019
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
March 17, 2009

On March 17, 2009, the Swiss Federal Tribunal issued an opinion in the matter of the Azerbaijan Wrestling Federation (“AWF”) v. the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) and the International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles (“FILA”).

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_416/2008
Original language: 
German
Published: 
28 ASA Bull 367 (2010)
also see 3 SwissIntArbRep 219 (2009)
Parties
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
February 13, 2012

This opinion dated February 13, 2012 that is of moderate interest involved a complex dispute between two tennis players and both the Flemish Tennis Federation and the World Anti-Doping Agency. The two tennis players had been banned for a year for alleged violations of anti-doping rules and an appeal was made to the CAS in November 2009 by the players and by WADA in December.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_428/2011
Original language: 
French
Parties
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
April 18, 2011

The case is of moderate interest as it deals with an issue that is only significant to sports arbitration.

 

A football trainer from Bulgaria trained APOP Kinyras, a Cypriot football club. In late 2008, two of his players tested positive to oxymesterone, a prohibited anabolic steroid. It turned out that the trainer had made some “white pills” available to the players – and some of them apparently did not resist the temptation.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_640/2010
Original language: 
German
Published: 
30 ASA Bull 144 (2012)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
January 28, 2016

The manager of a cycling team, who is a citizen of Belgium and domiciled in Spain, was involved as sport manager with several cycling teams, including in the United States. He was a member of the Belgian Cycling Federation and the holder of a license issued by the Union Cycliste Internationale. On the form he signed was a reference to anti-doping regulations and the exclusive jurisdiction of the CAS.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_222/2015
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
October 13, 2009

The case involved a Russian racing cyclist, Vladimir Gusev and a Belgian Company, Olympus SARL. Olympus hired Gusev for two years on November 15, 2007 and the contract was governed by Swiss law. On July 23rd, 2008, Olympus terminated the contract, alleging that a medical report seriously suggested that the cyclist had taken exogenous EPO.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_352/2009
Original language: 
French
Published: 
28 ASA Bull 634 (2010), 639
also see 3 SwissIntArbRep 441, 453 (2009)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
October 13, 2009

The case involved a Russian racing cyclist, Vladimir Gusev and a Belgian Company, Olympus SARL. Olympus hired Gusev for two years on November 15, 2007 and the contract was governed by Swiss law. On July 23rd, 2008, Olympus terminated the contract, alleging that a medical report seriously suggested that the cyclist had taken exogenous EPO.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_368/2009
Original language: 
French
Published: 
28 ASA Bull 634 (2010), 639
also see 3 SwissIntArbRep 441, 453 (2009)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
May 7, 2010

This decision the Federal Tribunal issued on May 7, 2010 involves two international Russian biathletes belonging to the Russian National Biathlon Team, who were tested for illicit substances at the end of 2008 and found positive.

The International Biathlon Union Doping Hearing Panel suspended the biathletes for two years from the date of the tests and an appeal was made to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”).

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_620/2009
Original language: 
French
Published: 
28 ASA Bull 658 (2010)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
July 29, 2010

The case involved a Norwegian equestrian whose horse had tested positive for Capsaicin during the 2008 Olympic Games in China. A tribunal of the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) found against the equestrian, disqualified him and the horse from the Olympic Games in Beijing and deprived him of all medals and prizes. The equestrian was also fined and banned for four and a half months.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_43/2010
Original language: 
German
Published: 
28 ASA Bull 837 (2010)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
June 18, 2012

The case involved an Italian professional cyclist whose Biological Passport was assessed by a group of experts appointed by the International Cycling Union (ICU). They concluded that he had used a prohibited substance or method. Disciplinary proceedings were opened and the Italian Anti-Doping Tribunal of the Italian National Olympic Committee acquitted the cyclist in 2010.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_488/2011
Original language: 
French
Published: 
31 ASA Bull 112 (2013)
Parties
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
February 28, 2013

The case involved a weightlifter who tested positive for Boldenone (an anabolic steroid) and was ruled ineligible for four years, which prevented him from competing anywhere.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_576/2012
Original language: 
French
Published: 
32 ASA Bull 543 (2014)
Parties
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
December 22, 2008

The case involved the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) trying to deal with an application to the UEFA by Gibraltar. After a first CAS decision of October 22, 2003 pursuant to which the UEFA was ordered to decide on Gibraltar’s application, membership was denied by the UEFA Executive Committee and a new appeal was made to the CAS. On July 6, 2006 the CAS ordered UEFA to admit Gibraltar provisionally and to put the matter on the agenda of its next Congress, which again denied membership.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_392/2008
Original language: 
French
Published: 
27 ASA Bull 547 (2009)
also see 3 SwissIntArbRep 1 (2009)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 

Pages