从案例角度论CAS裁决司法审查存在的问题

发布时间：2018-11-08 12:53

【摘要】：国际体育仲裁院（英文全称为Court of Arbitration for Sport，简称为CAS）是世界上最权威的体育仲裁机构，随着近年来的改革和发展，CAS的仲裁机制也越来越成熟。在体育仲裁领域，CAS做出的裁决具有极大的权威和拘束力。然而，CAS本质上还是一个仲裁机构，它的裁决必然也要受到国家法院的审查。根据CAS章程的规定，CAS所有裁决的仲裁地都为其本部所在地，也就是瑞士洛桑。因此，CAS裁决的司法审查机关为瑞士联邦最高法院。在早期的司法审查中，CAS的裁决更多地得到了瑞士联邦最高法院的支持。但是近年来，随着案件的增多，瑞士联邦最高法院也不再倾向于维护CAS的权威，于是出现了CAS裁决被瑞士联邦最高法院撤销的判例。这些案例具体体现了瑞士联邦最高法院在审查CAS裁决的过程中存在的诸多问题。在A诉WADA案中，存在着对具体规则条文的理解和CAS管辖权的争议等；在西班牙俱乐部诉葡萄牙足球俱乐部案中，存在着被申请人答辩超时等程序问题，还存在着CAS裁决无正当理由被撤销的实体问题，“一事不再理”的法律原则也遭到了不恰当地适用；在Canas诉国际男子网球协会一案中，瑞士联邦最高法院不当地撤销了CAS对此案的裁决；在Meca-Medina诉欧盟委员会一案中，瑞士联邦最高法院的管辖权受到了侵犯等。针对这些问题，笔者认为可以从两个方面研究并加以完善：制度层面，要明确规则解释的原则、确定CAS管辖权有无的标准、遵循严格的仲裁裁决司法审查程序、全面审查事实问题和法律问题；规则层面，要统一CAS裁决司法审查管辖权并建立世界性体育法机制。通过对此问题的研究，CAS仲裁的价值能得到更好的体现，体育赛事的顺利进行能得到更好的保障，瑞士联邦最高法院的司法审查也能发挥更好的作用，这些都说明从案例角度研究CAS裁决司法审查的问题还是很有现实意义的。我国的体育仲裁制度以及体育仲裁司法审查制度不管是在实践上还是在理论上，都可以借鉴国外的经验和研究成果，，以更好地促进我们体育仲裁事业的发展。
[Abstract]:The International Court of Sports Arbitration (Court of Arbitration for Sport, for short CAS) is the most authoritative sports arbitration institution in the world. With the reform and development of CAS in recent years, the arbitration mechanism of CAS has become more and more mature. In the field of sports arbitration, the ruling made by CAS has great authority and binding force. However, CAS is essentially an arbitration body, and its ruling must also be reviewed by a national court. According to the rules of the CAS, the seat of arbitration for all CAS awards is Lobsang, Switzerland. Thus, the judicial review body for the CAS decision is the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. In earlier judicial reviews, CAS's decision was more upheld by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. But in recent years, with the increasing number of cases, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court is no longer inclined to uphold the authority of the CAS, so the CAS decision was annulled by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. These cases exemplify the problems of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in reviewing the CAS ruling. In A v. WADA, there is a dispute about the understanding of specific rules and the jurisdiction of CAS. In the case of Spanish Club v. Portuguese Football Club, there were procedural issues such as the respondent's defence overtime, and the substantive issue of the CAS ruling being revoked without justification. The legal principle of "one thing is no longer reasonable" has also been improperly applied; In Canas v. International Men's Tennis Association, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court improperly annulled CAS's ruling in this case; in Meca-Medina v. European Commission, the jurisdiction of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court was violated, etc. In view of these problems, the author thinks that we can study and perfect them from two aspects: at the system level, we should make clear the principle of rule interpretation, determine the standard of CAS jurisdiction, and follow the strict judicial review procedure of arbitration award. Comprehensive examination of factual and legal issues; At the level of rules, the jurisdiction of CAS judicial review should be unified and the mechanism of world sports law should be established. Through the research on this issue, the value of CAS arbitration can be better reflected, the smooth running of sports events can be better protected, and the judicial review of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court can also play a better role. All these indicate that it is of practical significance to study the issue of judicial review of CAS decision from the angle of case. Both in practice and in theory, the sports arbitration system and the judicial review system of sports arbitration in China can learn from the experience and research results of foreign countries in order to better promote the development of our sports arbitration.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D997.4

【参考文献】