Asser International Sports Law Blog

Our International Sports Law Diary
The Asser International Sports Law Centre is part of the T.M.C. Asser Instituut

International and European Sports Law – Monthly Report – August 2016. By Kester Mekenkamp.

9. September 2016 Oskar van Maren Blog, International Sports Law Cases, International Sports Law Commentaries, International Sports Law Events, International Sports Law Material, International Sports Law Publications (0)

Editor’s note: This report compiles all relevant news, events and materials on International and European Sports Law based on the daily coverage provided on our twitter feed @Sportslaw_asser. You are invited to complete this survey via the comments section below, feel free to add links to important cases, documents and articles we might have overlooked.    


The Headlines

For the world of Sport, the elsewhere known “sleepy month” of August turned out to be the total opposite. Having only just recuperated from this year’s Tour de France, including a spectacular uphill sprint on bicycle shoes by later ‘Yellow Jersey’ winner Chris Froome, August brought another feast of marvellous sport (and subsequent legal drama): The 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro.


The Olympic Games

Amongst those athletes that stood out in Rio were, of course, the “most decorated Olympian of all time” Michael Phelps and the “fastest man on earth” Usain Bolt. However, standing out can also happen for the wrong reasons. One sad example of this is the downfall of former “Lord of the Rings”, gymnast Yuri van Gelder. The Dutchman reached the Olympic finals for the rings, but was sent home by the Dutch National Olympic Committee after a night out in Rio de Janeiro. He subsequently unsuccessfully launched legal proceedings before a Dutch court in an attempt to reclaim his place in the finals. For an in depth legal analysis of the case see the blog by Guido Hahn.

Yet, the Van Gelder case is certainly not THE legal highlight of the Rio Games. In this regard, the CAS ad hoc Division (for a good overview of the procedure at the division, click here) was the court to watch in Rio. The CAS Ad Hoc Division was installed to resolve legal disputes arising during the Olympic Games. These disputes can relate to, for instance, matters of qualification, disciplinary sanctions or doping (on appeal). During the three weeks of the Games, it dealt with a caseload of 26 cases, 16 of which were linked with the Russian doping scandal. For the first time, a CAS anti-doping division was also active in Rio (with a caseload of 8 cases). The CAS Anti-doping Division, was aimed specifically at resolving doping cases. Through this office, the CAS handles (potential) doping cases in first instance. It can organize hearings of the parties concerned and impose provisional suspensions pending the conclusion of the procedure. The final decisions could be appealed before the CAS ad hoc Division or the CAS in Lausanne after the Olympic Games have ended. The links to all the published Rio awards can be found below under case law. 

Much controversy arose during the Games regarding the debate over the divide between male and female athletes. In the centre of attention stood South African runner Caster Semenya and Indian track-and-field athlete Dutee Chand. Both are at the centre of an on-going medical, ethical and legal discussion about the policies regulating hyperandrogenism in sport. Our blog hosted two posts on the matter one by Marjolaine Viret and Emily Wisnosky on “Regulating the human body in sports: Lessons learned from the Dutee Chand case” and a more personal point of view by Marjolaine Viret, “Why we should stop focusing on Caster Semenya”.

Finally, this Olympic summer of legal disputes would not be complete without a brief discussion of the Paralympics ban of the Russian Paralympic Committee (RPC). Indeed, this week marked the kick-off of the Paralympic Games, which will take place from 7 to 18 September. Exactly a month before the start of the games, on 7 August, the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) Governing Board decided unanimously to suspend the RPC with immediate effect. In a statement on its website the IPC explained that it regarded the RPC unable to “fulfil its IPC membership responsibilities and obligations”, in particular those under the IPC and WADA doping rules. On 30 August the CAS delivered a much-expected award in which it dismissed the appeal by the RPC and confirmed the decision rendered by the Governing Board of the IPC. In particular, the CAS Panel found that the ban did not violate procedural rules and amounted to a proportionate measures considering the circumstances.


Case law

Olympics


Dutch court

Rechtbank Gelderland, Van Gelder, 12 August 2016, C/05/306681 / KG ZA 16-347  


CAS awards of the CAS ad hoc Division

CAS awards of the CAS anti-doping Division


Swiss Federal Tribunal


IOC sanctions for doping violations at 2008-2012 Games


Others


 Official documents and Press releases


 In the news

Athletics

Doping

Football

Olympic and Paralympic Games

Other


Academic materials

Books


Blogs

Upcoming events

16 September - The future of the ‘legal autonomy’ of sport, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK

26 September - Soccerex - Global Convention 2016, Manchester, UK

4 October – Demi-Journee Cedidac 2016 en Droit du Sport, Lausanne, Switzerland

 

Save the Date!

28 October – ‘The Wilhelmshaven case: Challenging FIFA and the CAS’, FBO, Zeist, the Netherlands


 


Comments are closed
Asser International Sports Law Blog | Losing the UEFA Europa League on the Legal Turf: Parma FC’s bitter defeat by Giandonato Marino

Asser International Sports Law Blog

Our International Sports Law Diary
The Asser International Sports Law Centre is part of the T.M.C. Asser Instituut

Losing the UEFA Europa League on the Legal Turf: Parma FC’s bitter defeat by Giandonato Marino

6. June 2014 Antoine Duval International Sports Law Cases, International Sports Law Commentaries (0)

This year the race for UEFA Europa League places in Serie A was thrilling. In the final minutes of the last game of the season, Alessio Cerci, Torino FC striker, had the opportunity to score a penalty that would have qualified his team to the 2014-2015 edition of the UEFA Europa League. However, he missed and Parma FC qualified instead.

One would think all was decided after the referee’s final whistle. However, on 19 May, the Italian Football Federation’s Second Instance Commission for UEFA Licences confirmed the decision of the First Instance and denied Parma FC its UEFA Licence for the 2014-2015 season. Indeed, Parma did not comply with the provisions included in the UEFA Licensing Manual, in particular paragraph 14.7 – F04 of the Italian Version regarding overdue payable to tax authorities for salaries. In this context, the Commission considered that Parma had not paid €300,000 of taxes related to payments made in October/November 2013 to 10 players on loan by the 31 March 2014 deadline imposed for overdue payments to players or tax authorities. 

Parma appealed this decision in front of the Italian High Court of Justice for Sport. Arguing that the payments made to the 10 Players were salary advances requiring a payment of taxes at the end of the season (i.e. 30 June 2014). However, the two Commissions and the Court considered these payments as a salary anticipation that required the payment of taxes within 30 days after the disbursement. This position was also reinforced by the qualification of the payments made by Parma’s tax advisors. 

Nonetheless, the facts of the case are quite murky. In fact, on 31 March, Parma had not received any notification from the Italian tax authorities regarding its non-compliance with tax obligations. The club received a first communication on 30 April, which was after the deadline set to obtain the UEFA Licence. Hence, Parma also claimed that it would have complied with its tax duties within the deadline, if only it had received a notification from the authorities before 31 March. This situation is even more absurd if one takes in account that had Parma raised objections to the tax authorities’ assessment it would have triggered the suspension of the legal delay and, therefore, would have gotten the UEFA Licence. 

In a decision dating from 22 May, the Italian High Court, even though it denied the Licence to Parma FC, sympathized with the club’s fate and acknowledged that in this concrete case the strict implementation of the UEFA Manual led to an unfair outcome. Nevertheless, the High Court considered that the UEFA manual was solely applicable and could not be put aside in this specific instance. Moreover, the High Court stated that as an ad hoc regulation, only UEFA itself had the power of suspending or adapting these rules. Thus Parma was sanctioned on the basis of a strict liability reasoning leaving little room to the judiciary to adapt the sanction to the circumstances of the case.  

On 3 June the CEO of Parma, Mr. Leonardi, declared that the club is considering to appeal the decision in front of CAS. It is however likely that the CAS will dismiss the appeal and declare itself incompetent since there is no arbitral clause in favour of CAS included in the Statute of the Italian Football Federation (FIGC). This is not a similar configuration as in cases CAS 2013/A/3067 Málaga CF SAD v. UEFA and CAS 2013/A/3233 PAE Giannina 1966 v. UEFA in which the UEFA License was denied by the UEFA disciplinary bodies. Moreover, an analogous situation arose in the case CAS 2013/A/3199 Rayo Vallecano de Madrid SAD. v. RFEF leading to the CAS denying any competence to re-consider the refusal by the Spanish Football Federation to confer a UEFA license to Rayo Vallecano.    

Parma could also appeal the decision in front of the Italian Administrative Courts, according to the law 17 October 2003, n.280. Article 3 of the law gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Regional Administrative Tribunal of Lazio, with seat in Rome, for appeals against decisions of the Italian Sports Justice. The jurisdiction of this Court is, however, limited to acts of the Italian Olympic Committee or Sports Federations that do not fall under the exclusive competence of Sports Justice Bodies according to article 2 of this law. Hypothetically, in this case the Administrative Court could quash the decision of the High Court and, also, issue a provisional measure suspending the effect of the decision. However, in my opinion, this is very unlikely to happen for reasons linked to the good administration of justice, rather Parma might be able to obtain a compensation. 

The Parma case highlights the sometimes “Kafkaesque” absurdity of the UEFA Licensing regulations: A club is denied the right to play in one of the most prestigious European competition on the ground of a wrongdoing it is not entirely responsible of! Supporters are deprived of their right to travel Europe to cheer for their team and the club is deprived of the opportunity to increase its revenues and financial sustainability. Again, this reminds us of the necessity to embed a legal mechanism enabling a contextual evaluation and adaptation of the sanctions in UEFA’s licensing regulations.  

Comments are closed
Asser International Sports Law Blog | International and European Sports Law – Monthly Report – October 2016. By Kester Mekenkamp.

Asser International Sports Law Blog

Our International Sports Law Diary
The Asser International Sports Law Centre is part of the T.M.C. Asser Instituut

International and European Sports Law – Monthly Report – October 2016. By Kester Mekenkamp.

11. November 2016 Oskar van Maren Blog, International Sports Law Cases, International Sports Law Commentaries, International Sports Law Events, International Sports Law Material, International Sports Law Publications (0)

Editor’s note: This report compiles all relevant news, events and materials on International and European Sports Law based on the daily coverage provided on our twitter feed @Sportslaw_asser. You are invited to complete this survey via the comments section below, feel free to add links to important cases, documents and articles we might have overlooked.  


The Headlines
We are looking for an International Sports Law Intern (with a particular interest in the CAS)! More information can be found here.


The (terrible) State of the World Anti-Doping System

The fight against doping is still on top of the agenda after the Russian doping scandal. The national anti-doping organizations (NADOs) have reiterated their call for an in depth reform of the World Anti-Doping Agency at a special summit in Bonn, Germany. These reforms are deemed urgent and necessary to “restore confidence of clean athletes and those who value the integrity of sport” and secure “the public’s desire for a fair and level playing field”. The NADOs propose, amongst others things, to separate the investigatory, testing and results management functions from sports organizations, and to remove sports administrators from crucial anti-doping executive functions. They insist that “no decision maker within an anti-doping organization should hold a board, officer, or other policy-making position within a sport or event organizer”. WADA welcomed the reform proposals and pledged to discuss them at the upcoming meeting of the foundation board. The necessity of such a reform, or at least of improving the effectiveness of the anti-doping system, has been highlighted (again!) by the release of WADA’s Report of the Independent Observers concerning the 2016 Rio Olympic Games. The reports point out that “the logistical arrangements made by Rio 2016 to support the sample collection process at official venues during the Games suffered from a number of serious failings”. These “foreseeable and entirely avoidable” logistical issues resulted in a strained sample collection process. On the way forward to reform WADA you can read some ASSER proposals in a recent policy brief by our Senior Researcher Antoine Duval. 


The Sharapova CAS award

Everything related to Maria Sharapova is necessarily making a lot of noise. Unsurprisingly, the CAS award on her positive doping test to Meldonium has attracted a lot of media attention. The decision in the dispute between Maria Sharapova and the International Tennis Federation (ITF) reduced the period of her suspension by nine months. The Russian tennis star had, during the Australian Open in January 2016, tested positive for the presence of Meldonium. A substance which had, for the first time, been put on WADA’s prohibited list in 2016. Subsequently, Sharapova announced she had been taking Mildronate tablets that had been prescribed by her doctor for many years. As her medical team “had failed to notice” that Meldonium was included on the list of prohibited substances, Sharapova claimed to be unaware that she committed a violation of an anti-doping rule. The CAS Panel shortened the period of ineligibility from the initial period of two years (imposed by the ITF’s judicial body) to fifteen months. It emphasized that the case turned on “the degree of fault that can be imputed to the player for her failure to make sure that the substance contained in a product that she had been taking over a long period remained in compliance with the anti-doping rules”. Given that her ban started on 26 January 2016, Sharapova will already be back in action late spring 2017. This ASSER International Sports Law blog by Marjolaine Viret, triggered by the Sharapova case, tackles the specific questions of the athletes (ir)responsibilities when taking medication. To what extent should they consult experts before taking a medication and to what extent can we assume that they are sufficiently qualified to assess the doping consequences of a specific product. .


The Bundesgerichtshof’s ruling in the SV Wilhelmshaven case

The ruling by Germany’s Highest Civil Court in the SV Wilhelmshaven case challenging FIFA’s training compensation system has been released. The BGH sided with the club but declined to pronounce itself on the compatibility of the FIFA regulations with EU law and on the validity of the original CAS award. The Asser International Sports Law Centre together with the Dutch Federation of Professional Football Clubs (FBO) organized a high-level conference on the case. You can read the conference report here.


New developments regarding State aid in sport

Real Madrid claim to have returned the State aid of €20.3 million it illegally received from the municipality of Madrid through various land transactions. However, the Spanish giants have also underlined that it is seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision at the Court of Justice of the EU, meaning that the saga continues despite the repayment.

The “Real Madrid appeal” has not yet been registered officially with the CJEU, contrary to the appeals launched by Athletic Club de Bilbao and Valencia CF respectively. Bilbao’s appeal concerns the Commission’s conclusion that Spain’s corporate tax system was selectively favourable for the clubs Athletic Club Bilbao, Osasuna, FC Barcelona and Real Madrid CF in comparison to the other clubs in Spain. At this moment it is still unknown whether the other clubs will join the appeal. More information on this State aid decision can be found in the blog written by Oskar van Maren.

In addition to its action for annulment, Valencia CF also launched proceedings for interim measures which aim to suspend the repayment of the aid until the General Court decides in the main proceedings. In parallel, the Spanish public authority responsible for ordering the return of the State aid from Valencia CF, i.e. the government of the autonomous region of Valencia, has asked the Commission to prolong the deadline for the return of the aid. These two requests need to be read in light of Valencia CF’s current financial situation. Its obligation to repay more than €23 million could well mean the bankruptcy of the Champions League finalist of 2000 and 2001.

Our in-house State aid and sport expert, Oskar van Maren, will dissect all the decisions of this year in a special lecture (State aid in Football: The year of the European Commission) on 24 November. 


Just Published! The Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration

Senior Researcher and head of ASSER International Sports Law Centre, Antoine Duval, has just published with CAS expert (and lawyer) Antonio Rigozzi a new Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration (the 2015 edition is available here). This is the first ever academic publication aiming to offer comprehensive coverage, on a yearly basis, of the most recent and salient developments regarding international sports arbitration, through a combination of general articles and case notes.


Case law

CAS

CAS 2016/A/4643 Maria Sharapova v. International Tennis Federation

CAS 2016/O/4684 The Russian Olympic Committee (“ROC”), [Russian Athletes] v. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)


EU

EU Commission State Aid SA.44439 (2016/N) – Sporting Arena Cork – Ireland


IOC

IOC Disciplinary Commission decision regarding Anna Chicherova

IOC Disciplinary Commission decision regarding Tatyana Lysenko


Wilhelmshaven ruling

Bundesgerichtshof Urteil vom 20. September 2016 - II ZR 25/15 - OLG Bremen LG Bremen


Other

Doyen’s Appeal to FIFA’s TPO ban before Paris court 


Official documents and Press releases

CAS list of hearing November and December

CAS The Court of Arbitration for Sport Reduces the ban of Maria Sharapova to fifteen months

CAS Essendon Case: The appeal filed by 34 players is not entertained by the Swiss Federal Tribunal

CAS The Court of Arbitration for Sport issues decisions in the case of five Russian racewalkers

CAS IAAF appeal upheld – Rita Jeptoo suspended for four years by the Court of Arbitration for Sport

CIES Football Observatory Monthly Report n°18 - October 2016, “Recruitment strategies throughout Europe”

Commentary by the Spanish anti-doping agency AEPSAD on the whereabouts High Court decision (in Spanish)

European Parliament Committee on Culture and Education on an integrated approach to Sport Policy: good governance, accessibility and integrity (2016/2143(INI))

FIFA Several football associations sanctioned after discriminatory and unsporting conduct of fans

FIFA President Infantino provides update on steps taken to improve governance and compliance as well as football development efforts

Spanish FA sanctioned for international transfers of minors

IAAF Ethics Board Statement on preliminary investigations into ‘brown envelope’ rumours surrounding bid for 2017 World Championships

IOC Declaration of the 5th Olympic Summit Protecting clean athletes is an absolute priority for the entire Olympic Movement

NADA-Statement zum 5. Olympic Summit

UK Parliament Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The Governance of Football inquiry

WADA Statement regarding Maria Sharapova CAS decision

WADA statement regarding Olympic Summit

WADA Compliance Review Committee Update

WADA Statement by Richard H. McLaren, Independent Person, Concerning Release of his Investigation Report, Part II

WADA Report of the Independent Observers, Games of the XXXI Olympiad, Rio de Janeiro 2016

WADA statement regarding renewed NADO anti-doping reform proposals 


In the news

Doping

AP, New WADA director general Olivier Niggli anticipates more state-sponsored doping

Nick Butler, Exclusive: IOC Medical Commission chair calls for more Government funding for WADA

Nick Butler, WADA report is microcosm of everything wrong with Rio 2016 and IOC

Causa Sport, „Fall Scharapowa“: Unachtsamkeit schützt vor (Doping-)Strafe

George Georgakopoulos, Greece lags in doping tests and would need assistance

David Millar, How to Get Away With Doping

Michael Pavitt, New testing authority within WADA proposed at Olympic Summit

Sport Leaks and Doping Leaks

Luis Torres Montero, Claves de la reducción de la sanción a Sharapova: análisis del reciente laudo del TAS

Jonathan Sachse and Daniel Drepper, Wie VfB Stuttgart und SC Freiburg Doping organisierten

Thorhild Widvey, WADA Must Be Reinforced and Publicly Supported 


Football

Vivek Chaudhary, FIFA's Gianni Infantino may face Ethics Committee investigation

Willem Feenstra, FIFA charged with complicity in human rights violations Qatar

Keir Radnedge, Infantino talks a good game about Fifa reform, but can he deliver?

Mike Ticher, Human error is part of football and video refereeing will solve nothing  


Ice Skating

Ernst Bouwes, De internationale sportweek van S&S: EU geeft schaatsers gelijk in 'Ice-derby'-zaak

Causa Sport, Kartellverfahren gegen den internationalen Eislaufverband ISU: Das „Ein-Platz-Prinzip“ vor dem Aus? 


Other

Brittany Bronson, Politicians Place a Bet on a Stadium, and Vegas Pays for It

Juliet Macur, Long Before Kaepernick, There Was Navratilova

Rebecca Ruiz, Russia Sports Minister Promoted to Deputy Prime Minister 


Academic materials

Antoine Duval, Tackling Doping Seriously - Reforming the World Anti-Doping System after the Russian Scandal

Despina Mavromati, Application of the 2015 WADA Code through the Example of a recent CAS Award (Sharapova v. ITF)

Despina Mavromati, The Role of the Swiss Federal Tribunal and Its Impact on the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)

Mordehai Mironi, The promise of mediation in sport-related disputes

Michal Radvan and Jan Neckář, Taxation of Professional Team Sport Athletes in the Czech Republic


Books

Antoine Duval and Antonio Rigozzi, Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2015 


Blogs

Richard Bush, Best practice for Sports Governing Bodies when dealing with individual complainants: Part 1 - Internal procedure and Part 2 - Guidelines for legal teams

Sean Cottrell and Mark Hovell, Life as a CAS arbitrator at the Rio Olympic Games

Sean Cottrell, Protecting the integrity of the Rugby World Cup - Ben Rutherford, Senior Legal Counsel and Integrity Unit Manager at World Rugby

Sean Cottrell, Nick De Marco, Nick Tsatsas and Richard Berry, How does the transfer market influence the integrity of football?

Nick De Marco, “Football for Sale” - What is the problem, and what are the solutions?

Antoine Duval and Kester Mekenkamp, De- or Re-regulating the middlemen? The DFB’s regulation of intermediaries under EU law scrutiny at the OLG Frankfurt

Jon Elphick, How athletes will be affected by the UK’s changes to “non-dom” tax rules

Alex Haffner and Krish Mistry, The law on banning athletes from competing in rival sports leagues

Philip Hutchinson, Who shoulders the blame? An analysis of vicarious liability in the sports industry

Interpol Integrity in Sport Bi-Weekly Bulletin - 3-16 October 2016 and 17-31 October 2016

Christian Keidel and Alexander Engelhard, How the Bundesliga’s new “no single buyer” rule has increased the broadcasting revenue for German football

Saurabh Mishra, Important lessons for athletes on doping sabotage: A review of WADA v. Narsingh Yadav

Laura McCallum, An overview of key case law relating to negligent liability for sports injuries (Part 1) and (Part 2)

Alice McDonald, Footballers facing tax fines: who is responsible for inaccurate tax returns?

Marine Montejo, Case note: TAS 2016/A/4474 Michel Platini c. Fédération Internationale de Football Association

Michael Rueda, What is next for NCAA student-athletes? From O'Bannon onto Jenkins

Ralph Russo, Although NCAA loses its appeal, future still hazy

Luke Sayer, Possible ways the Therapeutic Use Exemptions system can be improved to prevent abuse

Zane Shihab and Nick Bitel, What effects have FIFA’s Intermediaries Regulations had on player representation and commission levels?

The Swiss Ramble, Arsenal - New Sensation

The Swiss Ramble, Borussia Dortmund - The Sound Of The Crowd

The Swiss Ramble, Manchester City - My Aim Is True

The Swiss Ramble, Stoke City - But I'm Different Now

Oskar van Maren, Case note: State aid Decision on the preferential corporate tax treatment of Real Madrid, Athletic Bilbao, Osasuna and FC Barcelona

Ben Van Rompuy, What can EU competition law do for speed skaters?

Marjolaine Viret , Taking the Blue Pill or the Red Pill: Should Athletes Really Check their Medications against the Prohibited List Personally? 


Upcoming events

18 November - Football Law Conference and Sportspersons’ Dinner, St John’s Buildings Barristers’ Chambers and the Centre for Sports Law Research at Edge Hill University, Stretford, UK

24 November – Sports Law Lecture “State aid in Football: The year of the European Commission”, T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, the Netherlands

8 December - Actualiteitencursus Internationaal Sportrecht, De Kempenaer Advocaten, Arnhem, the Netherlands


 


Comments are closed