'Can't fight corruption with con tricks
They use the law to commit crime
And I dread, dread to think what the future will bring
When we're living in gangster time'
The Specials - Gangsters

The pressing need for change 

The Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) of the Council of Europe (CoE), which is composed of 318 MPs chosen from the national parliaments of the 47 CoE member states, unanimously adopted a report entitled ‘the reform of football’ on January 27, 2015. A draft resolution on the report will be debated during the PACE April 2015 session and, interestingly, (only?) FIFA’s president Sepp Blatter has been sent an invitation. 

The PACE report highlights the pressing need of reforming the governance of football by FIFA and UEFA respectively. Accordingly, the report contains some interesting recommendations to improve FIFA’s (e.g., Qatargate[1]) and UEFA’s governance (e.g., gender representation). Unfortunately, it remains unclear how the report’s recommendations will actually be implemented and enforced. 

The report is a welcomed secondary effect of the recent Qatargate directly involving former FIFA officials such as Jack Warner, Chuck Blazer, and Mohamed Bin Hammam[2] and highlighting the dramatic failures of FIFA’s governance in putting its house in order. Thus, it is undeniably time to correct the governance of football by FIFA and its confederate member UEFA – nolens volens. The real question is how to do it.

            Photograph: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/Getty Images                   Photograph: Octav Ganea/AP

The main recommendations of the report 

In order to successfully investigate and disciplinary sanction violations made by its members, the report calls on FIFA and UEFA to revamp their institutions. Issues like corruption, nepotism, cronyism, conflict of interests can only be solved if:

• The rules and decisions are clear, transparent and accountable (i.e. sanctioned) at a central level (Congress)

• The flow of money is clear, transparent and accountable (i.e. sanctioned) at a central level (Congress)

• Those who are in charge could be held accountable in a judicial or democratic, transparent and clear way before Congress

• The duration of the terms of office should be limited at all levels (President, Congress, Committees)

• The rules and decisions made by independent FIFA/UEFA officials should be made ‘for the good of the game’ and not for personal gains

• Possible conflicts of interests should be prevented

• Gender equality with regard to democratic representation (Congress, Committees). 

The report’s lack of clarity on the role of Switzerland

In order to implement the report’s recommendations, it is necessary to fully appreciate the essential role Switzerland could play because, inter alia, FIFA and UEFA are both associations under Swiss law. While taking into account the upcoming implementation of Lex FIFA i.e. the criminalisation of corruption in sport in Switzerland, one needs also to analyse the potential role of Swiss private law to ensure a comprehensive implementation of the report’s recommendations on reforming the governance of football by FIFA and UEFA. 

Good governance, corporate governance or association governance?

‘Good governance’ should be distinguished from ‘corporate governance’. The main and essential difference between the two is that the former concerns the protection of the public interest and the latter the protection of the corporation concerned. Accordingly, the set of duties, responsibilities and competences of, e.g., public law authorities are different from those who serve in a commercial enterprise. Considering the public and private law context and the different demands with regard to using the available instruments thereof, it is important to discern the differences between good governance and corporate governance.[3]

According to the European Commission ‘[c]orporate governance defines relationships between a company’s management, its board … and its … stakeholders[4]. It determines the way companies are managed and controlled’[5] by those stakeholders for the former’s and the latter’s interest.

In principle, corporate governance is mainly the (social) responsibility of the respective corporation[6] whereby those stakeholders play a crucial role to ensure that certain standards[7] such as transparency and accountability – with regard to, e.g., FIFA’s and UEFA’s economic and rule-making activities – would be respected in accordance with mandatory rules of national and EU law[8].

All international sports governing bodies located in Switzerland such as FIFA and UEFA have been recognized as private law associations under Article 60 et seq. of the Swiss Civil Code (CC). Since 1981, Switzerland has also recognized the public law status of the International Olympic Committee (IOC).[9]

Under Swiss law, an association could be a profit-organization that may make turnovers or profits comparable to commercial enterprises.[10] Essentially, however, a corporation differs from an association, namely the former has to be financially accountable to its shareholders whereas the latter is required to be democratically and financially accountable to its members.[11] In order to ensure that those members make use of their membership rights, it is fundamental that the decision-making process with regard to anti-corruption compliance structures and democratic structures are strictly adhered in accordance with mandatory rules of law. Accordingly, it may also be a starting point for associations to act in accordance with the principles of ‘association governance’ if they were – indeed – implemented in mandatory law and applied correctly.[12] 

Constraints to association governance

As one of the state parties to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Switzerland is inter alia bound by Article 11 of the ECHR i.e. the fundamental right to freedom of (assembly and) association, which is subject to restrictions that are in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society. Accordingly, those associations have a restricted competence[13] to set the rules, to apply and to enforce them uniformly to their members.[14]

According to Article 23 Federal Constitution (FC), a private law association with a non-economic objective (i.e. political, religious, scientific, cultural, social or non-profit) has the right of freedom of association i.e. the right to establish or dissolve, to voluntarily be (come) a member or to leave and to participate in the association’s activities, which is not subject to state approval or state supervision. [15] As profit associations are only protected by the right of economic freedom pursuant to Article 27 FC, it is of vital importance for non-profit associations not to aim for monetary or financial benefits for its members.[16]

FIFA’s intent to exist as a non-profit organization is apparent from their articles of association.[17] According to Article 2(a) FIFA statutes, its main objective is: ‘[…] to improve the game of football constantly and promote it globally in the light of its unifying, educational, cultural and humanitarian values, particularly through youth and development programmes’. UEFA has a corresponding objective pursuant to Article 2 UEFA statutes. As long as the surplus of revenues will be spent on its non-commercial objectives under those articles of association, the non-profit status of FIFA – and, mutatis mutandis, UEFA – would not be challenged by Switzerland[18]. However, as a legislator, a judicator and as a state party to the CoE, Switzerland should critically assess those associations’ non-profit objectives and the significant surplus from their economic activities plus the distributions thereof in view of the report’s recommendations on financial transparency and accountability in order to respect the – underlying – association governance principles.[19]

FIFA and UEFA[20] are both established and registered[21] as private law associations under Article 60 et seq. CC[22] and, moreover, bound to respect the Swiss mandatory rules of law under Article 63(2) CC. Thus, mandatory rules cannot be disregarded by the articles of association i.e the self-regulatory framework of FIFA and UEFA. If an association’s resolution were to breach mandatory rules, it would be either voidable (i.e. to be challenged within a month of the notification) or null and void (i.e. to be raised at any time) under Article 75 CC.[23]

In case the articles of association do not address a particular issue, the non-mandatory rules of law would apply.[24] In particular, it should be noted that Articles 64-69b CC mostly[25] refer to mandatory procedural rules with regard to the articles of association. For instance, an association is required to have two organs, namely the general meeting of members that has supremacy over all other organs (Article 64(1) CC) and a committee consisting of members – and non-members if not explicitly forbidden by the articles of association[26] – that are elected by the supreme governing body (Article 69 CC). Other organs may be established pursuant to the articles of association.[27]

In other words, it is up to the, e.g., FIFA articles of association to self-regulate the composition, the independence of the Ethics Committee’s members and the transparency of its work. It is therefore not clear how this particular recommendation (please consider p. 8 of the report) can actually be implemented and enforced by the Swiss authorities. A similar assessment could be made, mutatis mutandis, with regard to all the other recommendations of the report.

Civil liability

Apart from the aforesaid memberships’ rights deriving from the decision-making process with regard to anti-corruption compliance structures and democratic structures, associations could also be held liable by their members because a membership is a contractual agreement between two private parties. In other words, the extra-legal part of association governance may be corrected by the rules of civil liability (including tort).

In accordance with Article 1 in conjunction with Article 155(f) of the Private International Law Act (PILA), Articles 52-59 (‘legal entities’) and Articles 60-79 (‘associations’) CC are applicable to all members of both associations.[28] If a private person or legal entity decides to be(come) a member of a private law association, the respective articles of association, regulations or decisions are contractually binding. Apart from membership contracts, there are – of course – other forms of private law’ relationships available whereby one may contractually be bound (in[29])directly to the FIFA or UEFA rules or decisions like, e.g., labour contracts, commercial contracts, player’ licences or host city agreements (e.g., Qatargate).

In this regard, the mandatory rules of civil law include, in particular public policy, bona mores and the protection of personality rights.[30]

Given that the public policy restrictions have already been assessed in an earlier blog post[31], this blog will specifically focus on bona mores and the protection of personality rights. 

As regards to bona mores, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court ruled that in case an article of association contains a third party’s veto right regarding all decisions of the association’s general assembly, it would be null and void for violating bona mores and the right of autonomy of associations.[32]

In reference to the Swiss notion of personality rights (e.g., the right to professional fulfilment through sporting activities, or the right to economic freedom[33])[34], which must be regarded as the equivalent of human rights horizontally applied to private law’ relationships, Article 27 CC stipulates that ‘[n]o person can wholly or partially renounce its capacity to have rights and to effect legal transactions’.[35] Accordingly, if it cannot be established that the law, the athlete’s consent or the existence of an overriding public/private interest may justify an infringement to, e.g., an athlete’s right to economic freedom (i.e. restraint of trade), it must be regarded as null and void under Article 28 CC.[36] Hence, as legislator and as State party to the CoE, Switzerland should have the duty to critically assess whether FIFA or UEFA may infringe their members’ contractual rights as protected by mandatory rules of law, in particular public policy and the protection of personality rights (i.e. contractual freedoms) in the light of the report’s recommendations on financial and on democratic transparency in order to respect the – underlying – association governance principles. 

Criminal liability

As regards the impact of mandatory rules of criminal law on international sports federations based in Switzerland, the first package of Lex FIFA - that will enter into force in the first half of 2015 if uncontested (i.e. a referendum[37]) - defines their respective ‘presidents’ as ‘politically-exposed persons’ (PEPs) i.e. persons with a prominent public function[38]. As PEPs are in a position to potentially commit financial offences (money laundering or corruption), banks are required to closely monitor those accounts (and of their families!) for any suspicious financial transaction. If PEPs and/or their families were to receive cash payments greater than CHF100,000, the respective bank would be obliged to identify them, to keep a record of the transactions and to clarify the background thereof. In case there is any evidence of criminal activities, the bank must report the unusual transactions to the Swiss authorities.[39] However, and surprisingly, the first package of Lex FIFA does not cover UEFA because ‘it is technically a[n] European organisation’ according to the approved legislative proposal[40] and as interpreted by its initiator Roland Büchel MP.

As part of the future second package of Lex FIFA, Switzerland will implement legislation to make corruption in sport a criminal offence. Insofar, private bribery (i.e. passive/active bribery in the private sector) is only regarded as a criminal offence under Article 4a and Article 23 of the Swiss Federal Unfair Competition Law following a complaint.[41] 

Conclusions

The lofty goals of the Council of Europe’s report on reforming football’s governance are laudable in principle, however they lack a clear reflection on the legal means available to attain them. To this end, it is the main point of this blog post’s author to attract the attention of the reader on the particular responsibility of Switzerland in this regard. Due to FIFA and UEFA being legally seated in Switzerland, Swiss law is tasked with the tough mission, in light of recent events, to enforce via private law and criminal law association governance standards on both non-profit organizations. The future implementation of Lex FIFA with regard to the criminalisation of corruption in sport, is a first step in the right direction. What’s rather missing, however, is a private law perspective. A comprehensive implementation of the report’s recommendations can only be achieved if the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Swiss Code were to be in line with the report’s recommendations. Indeed, as a prominent Council of Europe’ state party, Switzerland should be stricter when assessing the (un)justifiability of a possible infringement by FIFA or UEFA of a member’s rights under the Swiss notion of mandatory rules of law. In this regard, it should also take into consideration the PACE report’s recommendations on reforming the governance of football by FIFA and UEFA.

[1] E.g. Qatargate: la confession accablante, France Football No. 3582, 9 December 2014, p. 19 et seq.

[2] Connarty, The reform of football governance, PACE report, 27 January 2015, p. 17.

[3] Addink, Goed bestuur, Kluwer 2010, p. 6.

[4] ‘See OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, 2004, p. 11, accessible at

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/18/31557724.pdf. ‘The EU corporate governance framework includes legislation in areas such as corporate governance statements, transparency of listed companies, shareholders’ rights and takeover bids as well as ‘soft law’, namely recommendations on the role and on the remuneration of companies’ directors.’

[5] COM 2012(740) final, Action Plan: European company law and corporate governance - a modern legal framework for more engaged shareholders and sustainable companies, p. 2-3.

[6] E.g., Giesen, Alternatieve regelgeving and privaatrecht, Monografieën Privaatrecht, Kluwer 2007, p. 29.

[7] COM 2012(740) final, Action Plan: European company law and corporate governance - a modern legal framework for more engaged shareholders and sustainable companies, p. 3.

[8] COM 2012(740) final, Action Plan: European company law and corporate governance - a modern legal framework for more engaged shareholders and sustainable companies, p. 3.

[9] Valloni & Pachmann, Sports law in Switzerland, Wolters Kluwer 2011, p. 65.

[10] Handschin, Good governance: lessons for sports organizations?, in: Bernasconi, International sports law and jurisprudence of the CAS, 2014, p. 118. Notes ommitted.

[11] Handschin, Good governance: lessons for sports organizations?, in: Bernasconi, International sports law and jurisprudence of the CAS, 2014, p. 118. Notes ommitted.

[12] Handschin, Good governance: lessons for sports organizations?, in: Bernasconi, International sports law and jurisprudence of the CAS, 2014, p. 119. Notes ommitted.

[13] Please do take into account Weatherill’s statement on conditional autonomy of sports federations under EU law: Weatherill, Is the Pyramid Compatible with EC Law?, ISLJ 2005(3–4), p. 3–7, republished in: Weatherill, European Sports Law Collected Papers Second Edition 2014, available at: http://www.springer.com/law/international/book/978-90-6704-938-2.

[14] Valloni & Pachmann, Sports law in Switzerland, Wolters Kluwer 2011, p. 40-44.

[15] Jakob, Huber and Rauber, Nonprofit law in Switzerland, The Johns Hopkins comparative nonprofit sector project, Working Paper No. 47, March 2009, p. 3, 5.

[16] Jakob, Huber and Rauber, Nonprofit law in Switzerland, The Johns Hopkins comparative nonprofit sector project, Working Paper No. 47, March 2009, p. 5.

[17] Pieth, Governing FIFA – concept paper and report, 19 September 2011, p. 12. Tomlinson, FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) : the men, the myths and the money, 2014, p. 28.

[18] Pieth, Governing FIFA – concept paper and report, 19 September 2011, p. 12.

[19] By the way, the EU-28 member states are obliged to act in accordance with the Court of Justice rulings in, inter alia, Walrave (Case 36-74, ECR 1974 1405), Bosman (Case C-415/93, ECR 1995 I-4921) and Meca Medina (Case C-519/04 P, ECR 2006 I-6991) with regard to the economic and rule-making activities of UEFA and FIFA. For more information please see Weatherill, European Sports Law Collected Papers Second Edition 2014, available at: http://www.springer.com/law/international/book/978-90-6704-938-2.

[20] Valloni & Pachmann, Sports law in Switzerland, Wolters Kluwer 2011, p. 67-69.

[21] Article 1 FIFA statutes; Article 1 UEFA statutes.

[22] Valloni & Pachmann, Sports law in Switzerland, Wolters Kluwer 2011, p. 19, 40.

[23] Handschin, Good governance: lessons for sports organizations?, in: Bernasconi, International sports law and jurisprudence of the CAS, 2014, p. 126-127. Notes ommitted.

[24] Jakob, Huber and Rauber, Nonprofit law in Switzerland, The Johns Hopkins comparative nonprofit sector project, Working Paper No. 47, March 2009, p. 6.

[25] With the notable exception of Article 75 CC.

[26] BGE 73 II 1.

[27] Jakob, Huber and Rauber, Nonprofit law in Switzerland, The Johns Hopkins comparative nonprofit sector project, Working Paper No. 47, March 2009, p. 6.

[28] Valloni & Pachmann, Sports law in Switzerland, Wolters Kluwer 2011, p. 19.

[29] E.g., a dynamic reference to accept the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS).

[30] Morgan, The relevance of Swiss law in doping disputes, in particular from the perspective of personality rights – a view from abroad, in: Revue de droit suisse, Band 132 (2013) I Heft 3, p. 344-345. Fenners, Der ausschluss der staatlichen gerichtsbarkeit in organisierten sport, Zurich 2006, paras. 111-113. Baddeley, L’Association sportive face au droit – Les limites de son autonomie, Basel 1994, p. 108.

[31] Marco van der Harst, Can (national or EU) public policy stop CAS awards?, 22 July 2014, available at: http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/can-national-or-eu-public-policy-stop-cas-awards-by-marco-van-der-harst-ll-m-phd-candidate-and-researcher-at-the-aislc.

[32] BGE 97 II 108 et seq. Valloni & Pachmann, Sports law in Switzerland, Wolters Kluwer 2011, p. 41.

[33] Let’s not forget that there are two sports law cases pending versus Switzerland at the European Court of Human Rights: Adrian Mutu (No. 40575/10) and Claudia Pechstein (No. 67474/10).

[34] Morgan, The relevance of Swiss law in doping disputes, in particualr from the perspective of personality rights – a view from abroad, in: Revue de droit suisse, Band 132 (2013) I Heft 3, p. 344, note 6: Decision 4A_558/2011 of 27 March 2012; ATF 134 III 193 (Further notes omitted).

[35] E.g., Morgan, The relevance of Swiss law in doping disputes, in particualr from the perspective of personality rights – a view from abroad, in: Revue de droit suisse, Band 132 (2013) I Heft 3, p. 344-345.

[36] E.g., Morgan, The relevance of Swiss law in doping disputes, in particualr from the perspective of personality rights – a view from abroad, in: Revue de droit suisse, Band 132 (2013) I Heft 3, p. 344-345.

[37] Deadline: April 2, 2015. Source: http://www.admin.ch/opc/de/federal-gazette/2014/9689.pdf.

[38] In order to prevent being blacklisted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Switzerland had to implement the 2012 Recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) with regard to combating money laundering and terrorist financing.

[39] Sources: http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/swiss-law-requires-bank-account-monitoring-sports-federation-heads/ and http://www.rolandbuechel.ch/news_850_lex-fifa-interessiert-auch-die-russen-buechel-auf-den-russischen-sputnik-news.xhtml.

[40] Bundesgesetz zur Umsetzung der 2012 revidierten Empfehlungen der Groupe d’action financière, December 12, 2014, p. 9697-9698. Available at: http://www.admin.ch/opc/de/federal-gazette/2014/9689.pdf.

[41] Cassini, Corporate responsibility and compliance programs in Switzerland, in: Manacorda, Centonze and Forti (eds.), Preventing corporate corruption: the anti-bribery compliance model, Springer 2014, p. 493.

Editor's note: This blog is part of a special blog series on the Russian doping scandal at the CAS. Last year I analysed the numerous decisions rendered by the CAS ad hoc Division in Rio and earlier this year I reviewed the CAS award in the IAAF case.

Unlike the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) was very much unaffected by the Russian doping scandal until the publication of the first McLaren report in July 2016. The report highlighted that Russia’s doping scheme was way more comprehensive than what was previously thought. It extended beyond athletics to other disciplines, including Paralympic sports. Furthermore, unlike the International Olympic Committee (IOC) the IPC had a bit more time to deal with the matter, as the Rio Paralympic Games were due to start “only” in September.

After the release of the McLaren Report, the IPC president Sir Philip Craven was “truly shocked, appalled and deeply saddened at the extent of the state sponsored doping programme implemented in Russia”. He immediately announced the IPC’s intention to review the report’s findings and to act strongly upon them. Shortly thereafter, on 22 July, the IPC decided to open suspension proceedings against the National Paralympic Committee of Russia (NPC Russia) in light of its apparent inability to fulfil its IPC membership responsibilities and obligations. In particular, due to “the prevailing doping culture endemic within Russian sport, at the very highest levels, NPC Russia appears unable or unwilling to ensure compliance with and the enforcement of the IPC’s Anti-Doping Code within its own national jurisdiction”. A few weeks later, on 7 August, the IPC Governing Board decided to suspend the Russian Paralympic Committee with immediate effect “due to its inability to fulfil its IPC membership responsibilities and obligations, in particular its obligation to comply with the IPC Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code (to which it is also a signatory)”. Indeed, these “obligations are a fundamental constitutional requirement for all National Paralympic Committees (NPCs), and are vital to the IPC’s ability to ensure fair competition and to provide a level playing field for all Para athletes around the world”. Consequently, the Russian Paralympic Committee lost all rights and privileges of IPC membership. Specifically, it was not entitled to enter athletes in competitions sanctioned by the IPC, and/or to participate in IPC activities. Thus, “the Russian Paralympic Committee will not be able to enter its athletes in the Rio 2016 Paralympic Games”.

This was an obvious blow to Russia’s Paralympic team and, as was to be expected, the RPC decided to challenge the decisions. Thanks to an agreement with the IPC, the case moved directly to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which decided in favour of the IPC on 23 August. Nonetheless, the legal battle did not end there as Russian athletes continued the fight in the German courts. In this blog I will first review the CAS award and then discuss the follow-on disputes in German courts.

I.              The IPC’s triumph before the CAS

At play in front of CAS was the use of clauses 9.2.2 and 9.3 of the IPC Constitution to suspend the RPC for failing to fulfil its obligations as a member. Indeed, the member’s obligation provided in clause 2 of the IPC constitution, includes the obligation “to comply with the World Anti-Doping Code”[1] and to “contribute to the creation of a drug-free sport environment for all Paralympic athletes in conjunction with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)”[2]. The RPC challenged the claim that it had failed to comply with these obligations. Furthermore, it considered that in any event the sanction applied was disproportionate.

A.    Did the RPC fail to comply with its membership obligations? 

The RPC contested in full the factual findings of the McLaren Report. Yet, the Panel held that the RPC failed to provide the necessary evidence to rebut McLaren’s factual claims. In particular, the RPC “decided not to cross-examine him although given the opportunity to do so”[3] and “did not call any athlete named by Professor McLaren as having been subject to the system he described”[4]. In other words, “Mc Laren’s evidence stands uncontradicted”[5]. However, in light of the lack of precise information, the Panel refused to conclude, like the IPC requested, that “the RPC and its Board Members were involved in, or complicit in, or knew of the existence of State sponsored doping of athletes and the methodologies as set out in the IP Report”.[6]

Nonetheless, the arbitrators also found that it is “undisputed that the RPC accepted the obligations imposed on it as a member of the IPC”, and amongst those obligations there is “the specific obligation under Article 20.1 of the WADA Code to adopt and implement anti-doping policies and rules for the Paralympic Games which conform with the WADA Code”.[7] Moreover, “the obligation vigorously to pursue all potential anti-doping rule violations within its jurisdiction and to investigate cases of doping (Article 20.4.10), are not passive”.[8] Thus, at a national level “the RPC is the responsible entity having the obligation to the IPC as well as to the IPCs’ members to ensure that no violations of the anti-doping system occur within Russia”.[9] Yet, the mere “existence of the system as described in the IP Report and in the McLaren affidavit means that the RPC breached its obligations and conditions of membership of the IPC”.[10]

Those are extremely important considerations to support the effectiveness of the world anti-doping system. In practice, the CAS is closing the door on national federations hiding behind the failure of other anti-doping bodies to deny their responsibility. If decided inversely, this would have led to a situation of organized irresponsibility, in which the bucket is simply passed over to a public institution (in Russia’s case RUSADA) that cannot be sanctioned under current anti-doping rules. Indeed, WADA declare RUSADA non compliant, but RUSADA is not a member of sporting associations, it does not enter athletes in international sporting competitions, thus SGBs would be hard pressed to find a way to impose any deterrent sanctions against it. If noncompliance is to be met with adequate sanctions, SGBs, which are tasked to supervise specific sports at national level, must bear the indirect responsibility for the systemic failure of the anti-doping system operating in their home country.

B.    Is the sanction imposed by the IPC proportionate?

As the Panel recognized from the outlet: “the more difficult question for consideration is whether the decision to suspend the RPC without reservation, or alleviation of the consequences to Russian Paralympic athletes, was proportionate”.[11] The RPC submited “that the IPC could have adopted a “softer measure” that still permitted clean Russian athletes to compete in the Paralympic Games in Rio”.[12] Furthermore, it argued, “that a blanket prohibition is not justified, as it has not been established that all para-athletes nominated by the RPC have ever been implicated in doping”.[13]

1.     Whose right are disproportionately affected?

The Panel considered first that as para-athletes are not parties to this appeal, “[q]uestions of athletes’ rights that may not derive from the RPC, but of which they themselves are the original holder, such as rights of natural justice, or personality rights, or the right to have the same opportunities to compete as those afforded to Russian Olympic athletes by the IOC in its decision of 24 July 2016 regarding the Olympic Games Rio 2016, are not for this Panel to consider”.[14] Instead, the “matter for review by this Panel is thus not the legitimacy of a “collective sanction” of athletes, but whether or not the IPC was entitled to suspend one of its (direct) members”.[15] Furthermore, “the collective member cannot hide behind those individuals that it represents” .[16]

Here the Panel adopts a relatively formalistic reasoning by denying the RPC the competence to invoke the potential rights of its athletes. This might contradict the idea that athletes bear a responsibility for the noncompliance of their national federation with the rules of an international federation as put forward by the Panel in the IAAF case. The RPC does, at least partly, represent the athletes, and there is a good case that can be made for it to be allowed to raise the potential infringements of the personality rights of its members in this procedure. It does not mean that the rights of the athletes were disproportionately affected, only that they should have been considered and not brushed aside as the Panel did in the present instance. 

2.     The (extraordinary) nature of the RPC’s regulatory failure

Unfortunately, the award’s analytical structure can lead to some confusion when dealing with the proportionality analysis of the IPC’s decision. There are two (implicit) steps that are key in the decision. First, an analysis of the depth (and consequences) of the RPC’s regulatory failure, and second an analysis of the proportionality of the sanction responding to this failure. The former will be dealt with in this section.

The Panel points out that the IPC “was faced with probative evidence of widespread systemic doping under the RPCs “watch””.[17] Moreover, as argued by the IPC, the RPC’s failure to act is even more acute in light of the IPC’s dependence on national members to implement its policies at national level. Thus, in particular, “the IPC relies on the RPC to ensure compliance in Russia with its zero tolerance anti-doping policy”.[18] More generally, “this federal system with complementary international and national obligations is the core back-bone of the fight against doping”.[19] In this context, the fact that the RPC claims that “it did not know what was happening and that it had no control over those involved in the system described by Professor McLaren does not relieve the RPC of its obligations but makes matters worse” [20]. Though it is unclear from the formulation used in this section of the award, the outcome of the case points undoubtedly to the fact that the Panel endorses the IPC’s understanding of the scope of responsibility of the RPC. Furthermore, the arbitrators insist that the “damage caused by the systemic, non-compliance is substantial” [21]. Finally, it finds again that the RPC “had a non-delegable responsibility with respect to implementing an anti-doping policy in conformity with the WADA Code in Russia”.[22] Thus, the RPC could not simply “delegate the consequences [of this responsibility] where other bodies within Russia acting as its agent implement a systemic system of doping and cover-up”.[23]

In this section of the award, the Panel recognizes, rightly in my view, that the effectiveness of the transnational regulation of international sports relies on the compliance of national federations and this is even more so in the case of the anti-doping fight.

3.     The proportionality of the sanction

The key question in the proportionality analysis was whether the sanction inflicted upon the RPC was adequate and necessary to attain its aim. The reasoning of the Panel is piecemeal and spread around a number of paragraphs of the award, which are regrettably not well connected together.

The first question is whether the IPC was pursuing a legitimate objective when imposing that sanction on the RPC. On the IPC’s own account, the sanction was considered “the only way to ensure that the system, and systematised doping, in Russia no longer continued”.[24] It adds “that it was a legitimate aim to send a message that made clear the lack of tolerance on the part of the IPC to such systemic failure in a country”.[25] The Panel recognizes that the “concern that clean athletes, inside and outside of Russia, have confidence in the ability to compete on a level playing field, and the integrity and credibility of the sporting contest, represent powerful countervailing factors to the collateral or reflexive effect on Russian athletes as a result of the suspension”[26], and constitutes “an overriding public interest that the IPC was entitled to take into account in coming to the Decision”.[27]

The second question linked to the proportionality of the sanction relates to its necessity. Was there a less restrictive alternative sanction available to attain the aim pursued? The IPC argued that the suspension of the RPC’s membership was necessary for three reasons:

• “to provoke behavioural change (for the future) within the sphere of responsibility of the RPC”
• “the suspension took into account that the failures in the past had resulted in a distorted playing field on an international level, because the IPC anti-doping policy was not being adequately enacted and enforced vis-à-vis para-athletes affiliated to RPC”
• “a strong message had to be issued to restore public confidence, since the Paralympic movement depends – much more than other sports – on the identification with moral values”[28]

The Panel held that the suspension was “a powerful message to restore public confidence”. It insisted also that there “was no submission to the Panel of an alternative measure that would, comparably and effectively, restore a level playing field for the present and the immediate future, affect future behavioral change and restore public trust”.[29]

Finally, the Panel concluded that “in light of the extent of the application of the system described by Professor McLaren and his findings of the system that prevailed in Russia, made beyond reasonable doubt, the Decision to suspend the national federation was not disproportionate”.[30] Moreover, it insisted that the consequences for the athletes were following logically from the suspension of the RPC and therefore proportionate, as it had decided in the IAAF case. The Panel also brushed aside the RPC’s attempt to portray the IPC’s decision as contrary to the IOC Decision dated 24 July 2016. On the one side, it found the IOC Decision to be irrelevant for the IPC and, on the other, it considered the IPC’s suspension to be in any event compatible with the IOC Decision.

II.            The Russian appeals in the German courts

The RPC’s appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal failed on 30 August because it could not demonstrate its ability to fulfil its obligations with regard to the anti-doping rules of the IPC and WADA, not unlike the one of the Russian athletes and RusAF in the IAAF case,. Nor could RusAF demonstrate that its interests would override those of IPC to fight effectively against doping and protect the integrity of sport. 

Yet, interestingly, new challenges against the RPC’s suspension were quickly lodged in German courts. Indeed, as the IPC is seated in Bonn, a number of Russian athletes tried to obtain provisory judgments from the Landgericht (LG) Bonn to participate in the Rio Paralympics. These cases were appealed to the Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Düsseldorf, and even ended up in front of Germany’s constitutional court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG). It would have been ironical if the German courts had quashed the decision of the IPC, bearing in mind that it is the German public broadcaster (ARD) which brought the Russian doping scheme to the fore in the first place.

A.    The decisions of the LG Bonn

On 5 and 6 September the LG (first instance tribunal) Bonn rendered two judgments (available here and here) on the matter. Both rejected the claims of the Russian athletes.

The first judgment found that the athletes could not rely on any contractual claims, as no contract existed between them and the IPC. This is due to the fact that the RPC is supposed to nominate them to participate in the Paralympic Games, for the court there is no contract between the IPC and the athletes.[31] Even where the IPC foresees in its rules that it can directly nominate athletes to participate in the Paralympic Games, one cannot derive that it has a contractual duty to select the claimants. Instead, it enjoys certain discretion in doing so. However, the LG recognized that the Russian athletes’ interests are affected by the IPC’s Decision of 7 August 2016, but it also acknowledged that the IPC justified its decision by the existence of a state-run doping scheme in Russia.[32] Thus, the final decision to enter or not athletes in the Paralympic Games of Rio should be left to the IPC. The fact that the IOC applied a different regime to the Russian athletes willing to participate in the Rio Games is deemed not binding upon the IPC, as it is a separate legal entity.

The second judgment, rendered the day after, follows a very similar line of reasoning. The LG added a pointed rebuttal of the claim that the Russian athletes were discriminated against. It insisted that the other countries are not suspected of running state doping schemes.[33] The court recognized that athletes cannot easily change their nationality, but it insisted that the Olympic Games are more than any other sporting competition characterized by the fact that athletes participating are not primarily representing themselves but their home country.[34] In this context, athletes must accept to face restrictions for which they might not be personally responsible.[35] Furthermore, the ineligibility of the Russian athletes was not deemed a disproportionate restriction on the freedom to work or on the fundamental personality rights of the claimants. The LG considered that authorizing specific athletes to compete under a neutral flag would not have been a milder solution to fight against doping, as the Russian public would still have identified them as Russian.[36] Instead, as members of the RPC, the claimants must accept such a restriction to their individual rights.

The LG Bonn strongly supported the decision adopted by the IPC. The court has, as the CAS did, declined to consider the suspension of the RPC, and the ensuing ineligibility of Russian athletes for the Rio Paralympic Games, as discriminatory or disproportionate.

B.    The Appeal to the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

The appeal decision of the OLG Düsseldorf is probably the most interesting of the German decisions analysed here. In the first part of its judgment, the OLG criticized harshly the Russian athletes for failing to request earlier a provisory order from the German courts. Indeed, at the time of the decision, 13 September 2016, the Paralympic Games were almost one week underway (7 September). Consequently, many (if not all) of the appellants would be unable to compete at the Games anyway, even if the court were to grant the requested order.

Yet, the core of the OLG’s ruling, and its most important contribution to the world anti-doping system, is its assessment of the balance of interests between the Russian athletes and the IPC. In a nutshell, the OLG found that the IPC’s interest in declaring the Russian athletes ineligible prevails because there is a legitimate suspicion that those athletes have been involved in doping in the previous years.[37] To come to this conclusion, the court conducted a fairly comprehensive assessment of the opposing interests. On the one side, the Russian athletes have an interest in participating in the Paralympic Games to secure economic revenues deriving primarily from sponsoring. On the other side, stands the IPC’s “fundamental interest in the organization of a fair sporting competition excluding athletes who have used doping or against which there is a strong suspicion of doping”.[38] In this case, the OLG held that the interest of the IPC for “clean” Paralympic Games prevails and justifies the rejection of the complaint.[39] For the Düsseldorf court, the personal guilt of the athletes is irrelevant, as the fact that they had the possibility to exercise their sport with the support of doping without risking to be discovered justifies in itself a general suspicion of doping against all Russian athletes.[40] Thus, the IPC can, for the preservation of the fairness of its competitions, declare them ineligible for the Paraympic Games. Only the athletes for whom it can be confidently demonstrated that they have not doped can be exempted from this exclusion.

Hence, the OLG considered that the factual constellation of the case justifies that each and every Russian Paralympian can be legitimately suspected of having been involved in doping over the recent years. Furthermore, Paralympic athletes were, as corroborated by the McLaren Report and his affidavit, also a target of the Russian doping system.[41] This suspicion cannot be rebutted by the oath taken by 68 (out of 84) of the appellants that they have not tested positive for doping in the last two years. Indeed, it cannot be demonstrated that the athletes have been subjected to non-manipulated doping tests.[42] In the end, the OLG fully endorsed the IPC’s decision to prioritize its objective of providing “clean Games” to the detriment of the interests of Russian Paralympians in participating.

C.    Final Stop at the Bundesverfassungsgericht

The next, and final stop, for the claimants was the BVerfG in Karlsruhe. The court, which rendered its ruling on 15 September, was faced with the demands of Russian athletes for a provisory order allowing them to participate (at least) to the closing ceremony of the Paralympic Games due to take place on 18 September.

The court’s balancing exercise between the interests of the IPC and those of the Russian athletes is favourable to the former. Thus, the BVerfG found that if it would grant the provisory order and later reject a related constitutional complaint, this would have irreparable consequences for the pending Paralympic competitions and closing ceremony and would send a (negative) signal to sport in general.[43] Even if, to their credit, the individual athletes are not directly involved in the state-run doping scheme unearthed by the McLaren Report, the Court believed that the decision of the IPC and the CAS to declare the whole Russian team ineligible must be respected. The entering of athletes through the national courts would intrude substantially on the autonomy of the IPC and of the CAS[44] and the deterring signal send by the RPC’s exclusion, which aims at scaring off national federations from supporting or tolerating systematic doping schemes, would be substantially weakened.[45]

Furthermore, if instead the provisory order is rejected and the Russian athletes prevail in a later constitutional complaint, the interests of the athletes to participate in the closing ceremony is still of significantly less weight than the IPC’s interest to ensure that the use of doping in sport is fought against effectively.[46] In particular, one cannot ignore that, besides one of the appellants, all the others will in any event not be able to participate to competitions which have already taken place.[47] Even for the only athlete potentially able to participate there are legitimate doubts regarding her material ability to compete in the Rio Paralympic Games. Therefore, the BVerfG rejected the appellants’ plea and definitely put an end to their hope in participating to the Rio Paralympic Games.

Conclusion

At the time of writing, the RPC is still suspended by the IPC and the second McLaren Report has corroborated with more evidence the extensive nature of the Russian doping scheme. The IPC has developed, in collaboration with WADA, a set of tough reinstatement criteria to be met by the RPC in order to be reinstated. The compliance of the RPC with the criteria will be monitored by a special taskforce. Thus, the IPC demonstrated its willingness to tackle head-on the Russian doping scheme. In doing so, it followed a radically different approach than the IOC and declared all Russian Paralympians to be ineligible.  

The CAS and the German courts later fully endorsed this approach. In fact, it seems that the national courts were even going beyond the findings of the CAS by emphasizing that there was a legitimate presumption from the side of IPC that all the Russian Paralympic athletes were doped. The CAS and the German courts also insisted that a balancing exercised between the interests of the athletes to participate in the Paralympic Games and the interests of the IPC to defend clean and doping free competitions, would be decided to the benefit of the latter. Even so athletes might not be directly responsible for the state-run doping scheme, they share the responsibility (as in the IAAF case) for the governance failures of their sports governing bodies. In the eyes of the German courts, this responsibility is reinforced by the fact that they are representing their country at the Paralympic Games.

In the end, the CAS (and the German courts) had to choose between:

1. Burdening athletes for the systematic failure of the Russian sports governing bodies to comply with their anti-doping commitments and risk to sanction innocent athletes;
2. or let the athletes compete and risk to jeopardize the already weak effectiveness of the world anti-doping system.

In general, this is the big fork-in-the-road question raised by the Russian scandal. On the one side, we can double down on anti-doping, beef up compliance mechanisms, and endure collateral damages: some innocent athletes. Or, on the other side, we acknowledge the total failure of the world anti-doping system as it is and de facto (or de jure) condone the use of doping in international sporting competitions. The CAS and the German courts clearly decided to follow the regulatory route, but this is only the beginning of a very long anti-doping journey.

[1] Clause 2.1.1.

[2] Clause 2.27.

[3] CAS 2016/A/4745, Russian Paralympic Committee v. International Paralympic Committee, award of 23 August 2016, para.43.

[4] Para.44.

[5] Para.43.

[6] Para. 54 and 55.

[7] Para. 56.

[8] Para. 59.

[9] Para. 60.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Para. 73

[12] Para. 76.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Para.79.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Para. 81.

[18] para. 82.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Para. 86.

[22] Para. 86.

[23] Para. 86.

[24] Para.83.

[25] Para.84.

[26] Para.84.

[27] Para.84.

[28] Para. 88.

[29] Para.89.

[30] Para. 91.

[31] „Anders als die Antragsteller meinen, kommt allein durch die Ausrichtung der Paralympics zwischen den Parteien kein Vertragsverhältnis oder vertragliches Vorverhältnis i.S.v. § 311 Abs. 2 BGB zustande. Da die Nominierung zur Teilnahme an den Paralympics im Regelfall durch das S und nicht durch den Antragsgegner erfolgt, ist nicht ersichtlich, dass die Parteien potentielle Vertragspartner wären.“ Landgericht Bonn, 20 O 323/16, at II.

[32] „Das Gericht verkennt nicht, dass die russischen Para-Athleten durch die Entscheidung des Antragsgegners vom 07.08.2016 nachhaltig in ihren sportlichen und auch wirtschaftlichen Interessen betroffen werden. Jedoch hat der Antragsgegner seine Entscheidung nachvollziehbar mit dem Vorwurf des organisierten Staatsdopings in Russland begründet. Insoweit muss es dem Antragsgegner selbst überlassen bleiben, von seinem Recht zur Zulassung einzelner Athleten Gebrauch zu machen oder aber nicht.“ Ibid.

[33] „Soweit die Antragsteller auf eine Ungleichbehandlung im Vergleich zu den Para-Athleten aus anderen Ländern abstellen, ist dem entgegenzuhalten, dass diese anderen Länder nicht dem Verdacht des organisierten Staatsdopings unterliegen.“ Landgericht Bonn, 20 O 325/16,  at II.

[34] „Zwar haben die Antragsteller keine Möglichkeit, ihr Land oder ihren Verband zu wechseln. Jedoch werden die Olympischen Spiele sowie die Paralympics weit mehr als Weltmeisterschaften oder andere sportliche Wettkämpfe dadurch gekennzeichnet, dass die Athleten an ihnen nicht nur auf eigene Rechnung, sondern vor allem für ihr Land teilnehmen.“ Ibid.

[35] „Der Charakter und die Besonderheit der Spiele können so auch dazu führen, dass der einzelne Athlet von ihm selbst nicht verschuldete Einschränkungen hinnehmen muss. Insoweit ist auch kein Verstoß gegen das Diskriminierungsverbot der §§ 19, 20 und 33 GWB zu erkennen.“ Ibid.

[36] „Die Zulassung einzelner Sportler bei Beibehaltung der Suspendierung des S wäre – als die Antragsteller meinen – nicht als milderes Mittel gleichermaßen geeignet zum Kampf gegen das Doping. Zwar liefen die russischen Para-Athleten dann nicht mit ihrer Landesfahne auf und träten dabei nicht offiziell für ihr Land auf. Sie würden aber dennoch von den Zuschauern mit ihrem Land identifiziert.“ Ibid.

[37] „Die Abwägung der widerstreitenden Interessen führt zu dem Ergebnis, dass der Antragsgegner den Antragstellern eine Teilnahme an den Paralympischen Spielen 2016 in Rio de Janeiro verwehren darf, weil der begründete Verdacht gerechtfertigt ist, dass diese Sportler in den vergangenen Jahren Doping betrieben haben.“ Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, VI-W (Kart) 13/16, at B.2.a.

[38] „Auf der Seite des Antragsgegners, der die Paralympischen Spiele 2016 veranstaltet, steht demgegenüber das fundamentale Interesse, einen fairen und sportlichen Wettkampf zu gewährleisten und alle diejenigen Sportler von den Spielen fernzuhalten, die entweder des Dopings überführt sind oder gegen die der hinreichend begründete Verdacht des Dopings besteht.“ Ibid., at B.2.a.bb.(2).

[39] „Im Streitfall führt das überragende Interesse des Antragsgegners an „sauberen“ Paralympischen Spielen zu dem Ergebnis, dass die streitbefangenen Zulassungsbegehren abzulehnen waren.“ Ibid., at B.2.a.bb.(3).

[40] „Diese ein Doping begünstigenden Rahmenbedingungen rechtfertigen gegen alle Athleten, die unter dem System trainiert haben, einen Dopingverdacht.“ Ibid.

[41] Ibid., at B.2.a.bb.(3) (3.1)..

[42] Ibid., at B.2.a.bb.(3) (3.3)..

[43] „Würde die beantragte einstweilige Anordnung ergehen, die noch zu erhebende Verfassungsbeschwerde aber später erfolglos bleiben, hätte dies erhebliche Auswirkungen für die noch ausstehenden Wettkämpfe und die Durchführung der Abschlussfeier der Paralympischen Spiele am 18. September 2016 in Rio de Janeiro und eine Signalwirkung nicht nur für paralympischen Sport, sondern für den Sport insgesamt.“BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 15. September 2016, 1 BvQ 38/16, at II.3.a).

[44] „Eine Zulassung einzelner Athletinnen und Athleten durch die staatlichen Gerichte griffe erheblich in die Verbandsautonomie des IPC und der internationalen Sportgerichtsbarkeit ein.“ Ibid.

[45] „Die mit dem Ausschluss des RPC von den Paralympischen Spielen beabsichtigte Signalwirkung, die insbesondere nationale Sportverbände von der Duldung, Unterstützung oder Organisation systematischen Dopings abschrecken soll, würde erheblich beeinträchtigt.“ Ibid.

[46] „Zwar erscheint das Interesse der Antragstellerinnen und des Antragstellers auch dann durchaus gewichtig, wenn ihnen nur die Teilnahme an der Abschlusszeremonie am 18. September 2016 möglich sein sollte. Im Vergleich zu dem Interesse des IPC, den Einsatz von Dopingmitteln im Sport nachhaltig und effektiv zu bekämpfen, hat dies jedoch deutlich weniger Gewicht.“ Ibid., at II.3.b).

[47] „Zudem kann nicht unberücksichtigt bleiben, dass - abgesehen allenfalls von der Antragstellerin zu 5) - die übrigen Antragstellerinnen und der Antragsteller wegen des inzwischen weitgehend durchgeführten Gesamtprogramms der aktuellen Paralympischen Spiele nicht mehr an den sportlichen Wettkämpfen teilnehmen können und ihnen damit insoweit nur noch ein bloßer Zuschauerstatus zukommen könnte, den sie auch ohne Erlass der einstweiligen Anordnung wahrnehmen können.“ Ibid.