Three weeks ago, I gave a talk for a group of visiting researchers at Harvard Law School on the accountability of the IOC for human rights abuses caused by hosting Olympic Games. On the day of that talk, Human Rights Watch announced that the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) would insert new language into the Host City Contract presumably for the 2022 Olympic Games onwards. The new language apparently requires the parties to the contract to:

“take all necessary measures to ensure that development projects necessary for the organization of the Games comply with local, regional, and national legislation, and international agreements and protocols, applicable in the host country with regard to planning, construction, protection of the environment, health, safety, and labour laws.”

This language would apply to the National Olympic Committee, the Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games, and the host city.

This language has been hailed by Human Rights Watch as a strong first step, and for good reason. It seems that the IOC is listening to complaints about the construction of the Olympic Games. The IOC has said before that it would address the violations of labour rights associated with the Olympic Games, in the XIII Olympic Congress, and its Recommendations, made in 2009:

The IOC will intervene at the OCOG level in the event of serious abuse, such as:

·       Mistreatment of people displaced due to Olympic venue construction sites;

·       Abuse of migrant workers at Olympic venue construction sites;

·       Child labour;

·       Improper restrictions on the media’s freedom to cover the Games, including cultural aspects.

The IOC will establish a system for correctly identifying and dealing with “legitimate complaints” from official sources.

The IOC will not intervene in non-sport human rights issues.

The leverage that the IOC has towards the Organising Commitres for the Olympic Games (OCOGs) should be determined. This might lead to amendments to the Host City Contract and Documentation for Bid Cities.

However, the experience of Sochi with its displacement of persons, and abuse of migrant workers at Olympic venue construction sites appears to have put lie to that promise. Therefore, it would seem that the prospective contractual language would be a strong first step. But, looking closer at the language, there are some causes for concern.

Old Wine in New Bottles?

First, it should be noted that this language is not novel. The IOC has similar language in its Candidature Procedure, under “Environment”:

Provide (a) guarantee(s) from the competent authorities stating that all construction work necessary for the organisation of the Olympic Games will comply with:

·       Local, regional and national environmental regulations and acts

·       International agreements and protocols regarding planning, construction and protection of the environment (2020 Candidature Procedure, Q 5.4)

That the new language in the host city contract is under the heading of “Sustainable Human and Environmental Development” should therefore not be surprising. However, the environmental requirements presented above were in the host selection process. This new language is contractual language, and should be evaluated as such (one could make the same argument re the host selection process documents – but, just like the IOC…small steps).

A “Toothless” Paper Tiger

Overall, however, the clause in the Host City Contract appears to fall short in four key ways:

1)    Weak standard: The standard used in the contract is compliance with national laws and international agreements/protocols. This standard has been problematic, as it can be a moving target. National laws can be changed. Consider the next two states hosting the FIFA World Cup. Russia has passed Law 108-FZ in advance of the 2018 FIFA World Cup. The law affects the rights of migrant workers brought in to work on the World Cup facilities. Migrant workers no longer need to be registered with local authorities. Restrictions on the length of the working day are removed, and overtime pay is replaced with time off in lieu. Law 108-FZ is a national law, and presumably the parties would comply with it. Although a question arises if the national law conflicts with international agreements…which prevails? The same can be said for another FIFA World Cup host – Qatar – that has also bid to host the 2016 and 2020 Summer Olympic Games. Qatar’s kafala system is certainly national legislation. But compliance with said legislation would not improve human rights.

2)    Vagueness: Vagueness in a contract will lead to conflict. In this case, what is “compliance”, or more to the point, what is “non-compliance”? Who determines non-compliance? Is non-compliance simply a complaint? Or an adverse court ruling? Who makes the determination of non-compliance? Is it in the IOC’s sole discretion? Or an agreement of the parties? Presuming this is meant to be an enforceable contract, a lack of precise terminology is problematic. Also, given the language of “take all necessary measures”, does this require a host to take all measures, regardless of the cost? Or to the point of undue hardship? This seems to be a rather high bar, but is it a reasonable one?

3)    Remedies/Enforcement: While in an ideal world, everyone will adhere to an agreement, breaches do occur. In the 2014 Host City Contract, the one particular remedy for breach is that the IOC can withdraw the right to host the Games. However, given the complexity of removing the Games to another city (which to my knowledge was only done in 1976 – with a move from Denver to Innsbruck), this is likely to remain a “nuclear option”. What other remedies might there be to make a sanction a reasonable deterrent? In addition, if there are disputes over whether or not there is a breach of this clause, the Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction. It may deny jurisdiction, and if it does so, then the proceedings move to the Swiss courts. Would CAS or the Swiss courts be interested in adjudicating what is essentially human rights litigation in another state? Would a Swiss court truly say, for instance, “Russia has not complied with international human rights standards”? It does not seem likely.

4)    Absence of Dialogue: The problem with inserting such language into a contract is that it creates a “take-it-or-leave-it” environment, without specifying what the “take-it-or-leave-it” is. Using the host selection process to tease out human rights concerns enables the IOC to ask questions of the potential hosts about best practices, concerns, or processes that could be put into place to address future problems. The answers in the host selection process would then create a more robust standard to hold a host to, giving the language in the contract more weight. Absent this, the language becomes window-dressing. Also, in the event of a host breaching this provision, will there be dialogue? Will that dialogue be public?

Given the above, the contractual language falls far short, if it is to be taken as an actual contract. However, it is a strong signal that the IOC seems willing to address human rights issues caused by the Olympic Games. If this is so, then the language is a meaningful first step. Other steps, however, are required. For instance (and here is the shameless plug), my PhD research examines the use of the host selection process to tackle human rights issues in the host countries, amongst other proposals. For now, those expecting to use the contract as a legal mechanism to ensure that future hosts respect human rights, it might be best not to hold your breath.

Introduction[1]

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) registers approximately 300 cases every year. Recently, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court – which is the sole judicial authority to review arbitral awards rendered in Switzerland – reminded in the Matuzalém Case (Case 4A_558/2011) that CAS awards may be enforced in other States that are parties to the New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

However, in that case, the Federal Court failed to recognize the main intent of FIFA, which is to avoid foreign State courts’ interference – even to the detriment of a plaintiff’s right of having the option to challenge a CAS award in a non-Swiss jurisdiction. Article 67(2-3) FIFA Statutes requires that provision shall be made to CAS arbitration and prohibits FIFA members to have recourse to courts of law unless provided for by FIFA regulations. Member associations must accordingly insert an arbitral agreement in their statutes on the recognition of CAS to resolve disputes under Article 10(4)(c) FIFA Statutes. Regarding labour-related disputes, Article 22 FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players in conjunction with Article 5 FIFA Statutes 2003 has carved out an exception to the aforesaid FIFA ‘exclusion’ and ‘allows’ FIFA members to seek redress before civil courts. Nonetheless, FIFA could still use its disciplinary power to enforce decisions (e.g. CAS awards). In addition, Article 64(1) FIFA Disciplinary Code explicitly stipulates that ‘[a]nyone who fails to pay another person […] or FIFA … money…, even though instructed to do so by … a subsequent CAS appeal decision …, or anyone who fails to comply with another [CAS appeal] decision …’, will be disciplinary sanctioned (e.g., fine, ban on any football-related activities, expulsion (member association), relegation (club) and transfer ban (club)). This is a typical case of so-called ‘arbitration with a reduced consensual character’ (Steingruber 2012), which is contrary to the consensual spirit that underlies private arbitration.

It should also be noted that in the Cañas case (Case 4P.172.2006, par. 4.3.2.2) the Swiss Federal Supreme Court recognized and tolerated the athlete’s reduced consent to arbitration (under Article 2 of the Player's Consent and Agreement to ATP Official Rulebook) in order to be able to practice tennis as a professional. It is moreover ‘based on the continuing possibility of an appeal acting as a counterbalance to the “benevolence” with which it is necessary to examine the consensual nature of recourse to arbitration where sporting matters are concerned’ (Case 4P.172.2006, para. 4.3.2.3). In other words, the application of ex post reviews of CAS awards by the Federal Court is a sine qua non to its acceptance of an athlete’s reduced consent to arbitration.

CAS awards could be challenged before courts, however, if they are incompatible with public policy (of Switzerland or EU Member States et cetera). 

CAS awards – Swiss notion of substantive public policy

As far as arbitration is concerned, national courts generally adopt a deferent attitude to arbitration, mainly reviewing the due process components and only entering substantial matters if they are incompatible with substantive public policy. Accordingly, the parties involved can only challenge arbitral awards on substantive grounds if they contravene the national notion of substantive public policy.

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has only once annulled an international arbitral award rendered in Switzerland for being incompatible with substantive public policy. Interestingly, the case concerns a CAS (appeal) award.

It should be noted that the national notion of public policy may vary per jurisdiction. Accordingly, enforcing arbitral awards that have been annulled at the seat of arbitration – e.g. the Matuzalém case – could still be enforced in e.g. Austria, Croatia, Denmark, France[2], Ireland, Luxembourg, The Netherlands[3], Poland and Spain.[4] However, arbitral awards that have been set aside at the seat of arbitration are likely to be refused enforcement in e.g. Germany, Hungary, Italy and the United Kingdom.[5] 

CAS awards – EU notion of substantive public policy

From an EU law perspective, it must be taken into consideration that enforcing arbitral awards like, e.g., CAS awards by Member States’ courts may affect the internal market. The Court of Justice already dealt with this topic and introduced a broad notion of public policy in the Eco Swiss Case (Case C-126/97) by ruling that Article 101 TFEU may be regarded as a public policy matter in the sense of Article V(2)(b) of the New York convention. In the Manfredi Case (Joined cases C-295/04 to C-298/04), the Court further stated (para. 31): ’Articles … [101-102 TFEU] are a matter of public policy which must be automatically applied by national courts …’. In other words, national courts do have an ex officio duty to exercise control during inter alia enforcement proceedings of arbitral awards. In the Nordsee Case (C-102/81), the Court further stressed the importance of ex post reviews of arbitral awards by national courts.

The latter is especially relevant in reference to their obligation to ensure the uniform application of EU law. The Court stated (para 13) that private arbitral tribunals are not to be considered as ‘any court or tribunal’ under Article 267 TFEU and therefore are not allowed to directly submit an application for a preliminary ruling on EU law. However, in case an arbitral tribunal is, inter alia, established by law, permanent, independent, has a compulsory jurisdiction, its procedure is inter partes and it applies rules of law, the Court of Justice recently (Case C‑555/13) characterised it as ‘any court or tribunal’. Consequently, a mandatory arbitral tribunal established in a Member State may refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

As regards to doping-related disputes, the WADA Code is mandatory in substance and must be followed by signatories like, e.g., National Anti-Doping Organizations. Moreover, all Member States have designated a National Anti-Doping Organization (Appendix 1 WADA Code) as the primary authority to adopt and implement inter alia anti-doping measures at the national level. In addition, Article 23.2.2 in conjunction with Article 13.2.1 WADA Code refers inter alia to the exclusive jurisdiction of the CAS Appeal Arbitration, which means that CAS has been recognized by all Member States as a mandatory arbitral tribunal (established in Switzerland) with regard to doping-related disputes. However, as opposed to the regulations of sports governing bodies like FIFA, the WADA Code explicitly mentions the application of ex post reviews of CAS awards by national courts.                                                       

According to the Court, reviewing arbitral awards should be limited in scope and refusing to enforce foreign arbitral awards (i.e. CAS awards) by national courts should only be possible in exceptional circumstances, both in the interest of efficient arbitral proceedings. As previously mentioned, national courts are generally deferent towards arbitral awards. Moreover, they do not review the way the law is applied by the arbitrators. A national court’s review is confined to the nature and impact of the decision and its procedural aspects. Accordingly, the Court accepted the national courts’ limited scope of review in reference to the principle of procedural autonomy to implement and enforce national and EU law. Moreover, in the interest of good administration, fundamental principles of procedure recognized by all Member States must prevail. This procedural autonomy finds its limit in the need to warranty the effet utile of EU competition law as fully as other public policy matters (i.e. principle of equivalence). Moreover, according to the Court, EU competition law is a fundamental provision for the realisation of the internal market and must therefore be regarded as a public policy matter by national courts when enforcing arbitral awards. Thus, the Court ruled that a national court’s limited review of arbitral awards must extend to EU competition law, which should be integrated in the Member State’s national notion of public policy in order to ensure that EU law actually takes effect (principle of effectiveness).

The Court furthermore stated that reviewing an arbitral award for being incompatible with public policy should only occur under exceptional circumstances. Only if the effects of enforcing an arbitral award by a national court contravene the most fundamental principles of law in the respective jurisdiction, it may be denied recognition and enforcement for being incompatible with public policy. In order to qualify as such, a competition law violation must therefore be regarded as very serious, e.g. a complete disregard of an obvious and serious violation such as a cartel. In addition, the Court especially referred to the prohibition laid down in Article 101(1) TFEU, which is primarily a matter of substance. In reference to the national courts’ limited scope of review, one can therefore argue that infringements to EU competition law may be regarded as substantive public policy violations during inter alia enforcement proceedings of arbitral awards.

Finally, competition law is not the internal market’s only fundamental provision. It could be extrapolated that the Court relied on a wide notion of public policy in Eco Swiss. For instance, the fundamental provisions of free movement may be applicable in a CAS award’s enforcement proceedings and could, in principle, qualify as public policy matters in exceptional circumstances. If, e.g., enforcement proceedings of the Matuzalém CAS award were sought before Member States’ courts, a violation of the freedom of workers (he played for Lazio Roma between 2008 and 2013) or service providers (e.g., personal sponsorship or endorsement deals) could be invoked to bar the recognition and enforcement of the award.

Conclusion

CAS awards are potentially fragile at the enforcement stage as they may contradict national States’ understanding of the public policy exception. This is even more so if one characterises EU competition law and EU free movement rights as public policy concerns. However, in practice the enforcement of CAS awards is very rarely used[6]. Sport governing bodies can rely on their contractual disciplinary power to ban athletes from the competition they organize and thus do not rely on national courts to enforce CAS awards. Nevertheless, banned athletes could initiate action for damages against sports governing bodies and force them to ask for the recognition and enforcement of the award in their defence plea. Thus, there is a very indirect (and protracted) way to challenge CAS award on the basis of EU public policy, but it is a windy and rocky legal path.

Epilogue

A personal message to Claudia Pechstein - German Speedskater and Olympic Champion (five gold, two silver and two bronze): Pursuant to Article 25(6) of the ISU Constitution, the ISU is also complicit and the respective CAS awards could accordingly be challenged for being incompatible with substantive public policy if they were to be enforced in a Member State …

[1] Notes are mostly ommitted. A comprehensive article will be published in 2014.

[2] E.g., Cour de cassation, 23 March 1994, Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, Vol XX (1995), p. 663.

[3] E.g., Amsterdam Court of Appeal, Case No. 200.005.269/01, April 28, 2009; Amsterdam Court of Appeal, Case No. 200.100.508/01, September 18, 2012.

[4] ICC Guide to national procedures for the recognition and enforcement of awards under the New York convention, ICC Court of Arbitration Bulletin (Vol 23, Special Supplement) 2012, p. 20.

[5] Ibid.

[6] It should be noted that, as far as we know, only one CAS ordinary award has actually been enforced in a Member State: IMFC Licensing B.V. v. R.C.D. Espanyol de Barcelona, Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Catalunya, 30 May 2012 (IMFC Licensing, B.V. v. R.C.D. Espanyol de Barcelona, S.A.D.) Yearbook XXXVIII (2013) pp. 462-464.