The 'Chambre Arbitrale du Sport' (CAS): a new body for dispute settlement in French sport.

• Author: Marmayou, Jean-Michel

Background. The so-called "Mazeaud law" 75-988, enacted in France on 29th October 1975, made the Comite National Olympique et Sportif Francais (1) (CNOSF) the main body for dispute settlement in French sport. Article 14 of this law states that "the CNOSF settles disputes opposing practitioners, groups and federations, when requested". These powers were not put into practice at the time as disputes in the field of sport essentially involve the individual sport federations themselves (which derive their authority from the state) and therefore concern public law, which excludes resolution by arbitration. This meant that the French sports movement preferred a prior conciliation approach. Today, in a concern to adopt a position as the preferred body for the settlement of sports disputes, and no doubt due to pressure from the world of professional football which has been very critical of the conciliation approach, the CNOSF has sought to create an arbitral body for resolving disputes in sport. As authorized by its articles (2), its General Assembly of 23rd May 2007 approved a resolution amending Article 19 of its Rules of Procedure. Henceforth, this article stipulates that a "special rule adopted by the board of administration on a proposal from the Executive Committee, after opinion from the' Committee of Ethics, also lays down the conditions in which, for any private dispute resulting from a sports activity or related to sport and involving rights freely available to the parties, the parties may enter into an agreement to submit their dispute to an arbitration panel consisting of persons drawn from a list approved by the CNOSF's board of administration".

The CAS' Rules of Procedure were published in January 2008 together with a list of the first 40 arbitrators.

Models. By creating the French CAS, the CNOSF demonstrated its determination to transpose the undeniable international success of the Tribunal Arbitral du Sport (3) (TAS) based in Switzerland onto a national platform. However, a different approach has been adopted. The CNOSF prefers to follow the approach adopted by certain European Olympic committees, that is to say, a national arbitration institution for sports as an internal body created within the National Olympic Committee, the highest authority in the domestic sports movement. (4) In Italy for instance, the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) set up and continues to administer the Camera di conciliazione e di arbitrato per lo sport. The Belgian Commission for Arbitration of Sports Disputes is also a creation of the Belgian Interfederal Olympic Committee (COIB) which has created and accommodated the Commission belge d'Arbitrage (Belgian Commission of Arbitration) since 1991 in its headquarters. In Luxembourg, the Luxembourg Commission of Arbitration for Sport is also a creation of the Luxembourg Olympic and Sports Committee (COSL) in accordance with its articles. In Poland also, the Trybunal Arbitra owy do Spraw Sportu has been set up by the Polish Olympic Committee (PKO).

However, even if arbitration is a form of justice that meets the needs of the world of competitive sport in that the arbitrator chosen by the parties is able to issue confidential and rapid settlements that take into account the particular nature of a sport but without strict adherence to the rules of legal procedure, it will only be effective and accepted as a valid form of justice if it is entirely legitimate. Therefore, it is essential that the arbitration instances set up to hear disputes in the field of sport have very high standards in terms of their respect for fundamental rights. Indeed, the corollary of jurisdictional independence is irreproachable quality, the most important criterion of which is a very high degree of independence. In fact, the CNOSF is the highest institution in French sport and to create a dispute resolution entity within its confines is to ignore this obligation of independence. Indeed, it will be noted that the organization of the CAS comes under the authority of a Committee of Ethics and does not depend on the CNOSF's board of administration directly...