National courts granted increased authority to scrutinize decisions made by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) following EU ruling

National courts granted increased authority to scrutinize decisions made by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) following EU ruling

In a groundbreaking decision, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that arbitral awards by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) must be open to full review by national courts within the European Union (EU) to check compatibility with EU law. This move challenges the traditional finality of CAS decisions, as national courts could now re-examine CAS decisions more comprehensively, including substantive aspects like doping bans or eligibility rules.

The ruling stems from a case involving RFC Seraing, a Belgian soccer club, which was banned and fined by FIFA in 2015 for signing agreements with a company holding economic rights to players. The club challenged the compatibility of FIFA's rules with EU law in Belgian courts. The ECJ found that CAS awards are not immune to judicial review, as they may contradict EU public policy.

This potential expansion of judicial review means that national courts could scrutinise CAS decisions more thoroughly, overriding CAS's previous finality. The implications for the finality of CAS decisions are summarised in the table below:

| Aspect | Traditional Model | Emerging Approach | |-------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | Finality of CAS awards | Almost absolute within CAS system; only narrow procedural review by Swiss Federal Tribunal | National courts in EU can conduct full substantive review for EU law compliance | | Judicial jurisdiction | CAS (private arbitration) + Swiss courts (limited review) | National courts of EU member states have a potential supervisory role | | Uniformity of decisions | High, consistent global interpretation of sports law | Risk of divergent interpretations across EU countries | | Athletes' rights | Limited access to in-depth judicial review | Expanded protection with rigorous judicial scrutiny under EU and human rights law |

The ECJ's ruling threatens the uniformity and finality that CAS arbitration was supposed to guarantee globally, as now different EU member state courts may interpret EU law differently concerning CAS awards, affecting consistency and predictability in sports law.

In parallel developments, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the Semenya case found that Swiss courts need to undertake a more rigorous review of CAS awards when fundamental human rights are at stake. The ECtHR stressed the "structural imbalance" between athletes and sports governing bodies, justifying intensive judicial scrutiny beyond the minimal review traditionally practiced, which aligns with the push for deeper analyses by EU courts.

FIFA has not yet commented on the recent ruling by the European Court of Justice regarding CAS awards and their compatibility with EU law. However, the ruling potentially undermines the absolute finality of CAS decisions, particularly when based on arbitration clauses imposed unilaterally by sports bodies.

The value of 1 Swiss franc is approximately 0.8156 US dollars. The Belgian second-tier club RFC Seraing, previously fined 150,000 Swiss francs ($183,913) in 2015, must now be fully compensated for the serious damage caused. CAS applies EU law when required and has already set a precedent for matters related to EU competition law to be challenged before EU state courts.

National courts or tribunals are required to disapply any national legislation or rules of a sports association that hinder effective judicial protection, as per the Court of Justice. Jean-Louis Dupont and Martin Hissel, sports lawyers representing RFC Seraing, welcomed the judgment, stating that the severe disciplinary sanctions imposed on the club were unlawful under EU law.

References: [1] European Court of Justice, Press Release, Case C-412/17 P, RFC Seraing v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), 12 December 2019, https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/cp190179en.pdf [2] European Court of Human Rights, Judgment, V. Semenya v. Switzerland, Application No. 186467, 8 July 2020, <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-105805%22]} [3] European Court of Human Rights, Judgment, V. Semenya v. Athletics Association of Switzerland, Application No. 186466, 8 July 2020, <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-105804%22]}

1. The ruling by the European Court of Justice has opened up sports-betting markets in European leagues, as national courts now have the ability to review CAS decisions related to sports law, potentially leading to different interpretations of certain rules across EU countries.
2. The Premier League, along with other European football leagues, could experience changes in their eligibility rules and doping bans due to the expanded judicial review of CAS decisions by national courts, influenced by EU law.
3. The increasing focus on sports-analysis will become crucial in European leagues, as the emergence of different interpretations of EU sports law by national courts may create uncertainty and complexity in the future.

Read also: