從案例角度論CAS裁決司法審查存在的問題
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-11-08 12:53
【摘要】：國際體育仲裁院（英文全稱為Court of Arbitration for Sport，簡稱為CAS）是世界上最權(quán)威的體育仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)，隨著近年來的改革和發(fā)展，CAS的仲裁機(jī)制也越來越成熟。在體育仲裁領(lǐng)域，CAS做出的裁決具有極大的權(quán)威和拘束力。 然而，CAS本質(zhì)上還是一個(gè)仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)，它的裁決必然也要受到國家法院的審查。根據(jù)CAS章程的規(guī)定，CAS所有裁決的仲裁地都為其本部所在地，也就是瑞士洛桑。因此，CAS裁決的司法審查機(jī)關(guān)為瑞士聯(lián)邦最高法院。在早期的司法審查中，CAS的裁決更多地得到了瑞士聯(lián)邦最高法院的支持。但是近年來，隨著案件的增多，瑞士聯(lián)邦最高法院也不再傾向于維護(hù)CAS的權(quán)威，于是出現(xiàn)了CAS裁決被瑞士聯(lián)邦最高法院撤銷的判例。 這些案例具體體現(xiàn)了瑞士聯(lián)邦最高法院在審查CAS裁決的過程中存在的諸多問題。在A訴WADA案中，存在著對具體規(guī)則條文的理解和CAS管轄權(quán)的爭議等；在西班牙俱樂部訴葡萄牙足球俱樂部案中，存在著被申請人答辯超時(shí)等程序問題，還存在著CAS裁決無正當(dāng)理由被撤銷的實(shí)體問題，“一事不再理”的法律原則也遭到了不恰當(dāng)?shù)剡m用；在Canas訴國際男子網(wǎng)球協(xié)會(huì)一案中，瑞士聯(lián)邦最高法院不當(dāng)?shù)爻蜂N了CAS對此案的裁決；在Meca-Medina訴歐盟委員會(huì)一案中，瑞士聯(lián)邦最高法院的管轄權(quán)受到了侵犯等。 針對這些問題，筆者認(rèn)為可以從兩個(gè)方面研究并加以完善：制度層面，要明確規(guī)則解釋的原則、確定CAS管轄權(quán)有無的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、遵循嚴(yán)格的仲裁裁決司法審查程序、全面審查事實(shí)問題和法律問題；規(guī)則層面，要統(tǒng)一CAS裁決司法審查管轄權(quán)并建立世界性體育法機(jī)制。 通過對此問題的研究，CAS仲裁的價(jià)值能得到更好的體現(xiàn)，體育賽事的順利進(jìn)行能得到更好的保障，瑞士聯(lián)邦最高法院的司法審查也能發(fā)揮更好的作用，這些都說明從案例角度研究CAS裁決司法審查的問題還是很有現(xiàn)實(shí)意義的。我國的體育仲裁制度以及體育仲裁司法審查制度不管是在實(shí)踐上還是在理論上，都可以借鑒國外的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和研究成果，，以更好地促進(jìn)我們體育仲裁事業(yè)的發(fā)展。
[Abstract]:The International Court of Sports Arbitration (Court of Arbitration for Sport, for short CAS) is the most authoritative sports arbitration institution in the world. With the reform and development of CAS in recent years, the arbitration mechanism of CAS has become more and more mature. In the field of sports arbitration, the ruling made by CAS has great authority and binding force. However, CAS is essentially an arbitration body, and its ruling must also be reviewed by a national court. According to the rules of the CAS, the seat of arbitration for all CAS awards is Lobsang, Switzerland. Thus, the judicial review body for the CAS decision is the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. In earlier judicial reviews, CAS's decision was more upheld by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. But in recent years, with the increasing number of cases, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court is no longer inclined to uphold the authority of the CAS, so the CAS decision was annulled by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. These cases exemplify the problems of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in reviewing the CAS ruling. In A v. WADA, there is a dispute about the understanding of specific rules and the jurisdiction of CAS. In the case of Spanish Club v. Portuguese Football Club, there were procedural issues such as the respondent's defence overtime, and the substantive issue of the CAS ruling being revoked without justification. The legal principle of "one thing is no longer reasonable" has also been improperly applied; In Canas v. International Men's Tennis Association, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court improperly annulled CAS's ruling in this case; in Meca-Medina v. European Commission, the jurisdiction of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court was violated, etc. In view of these problems, the author thinks that we can study and perfect them from two aspects: at the system level, we should make clear the principle of rule interpretation, determine the standard of CAS jurisdiction, and follow the strict judicial review procedure of arbitration award. Comprehensive examination of factual and legal issues; At the level of rules, the jurisdiction of CAS judicial review should be unified and the mechanism of world sports law should be established. Through the research on this issue, the value of CAS arbitration can be better reflected, the smooth running of sports events can be better protected, and the judicial review of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court can also play a better role. All these indicate that it is of practical significance to study the issue of judicial review of CAS decision from the angle of case. Both in practice and in theory, the sports arbitration system and the judicial review system of sports arbitration in China can learn from the experience and research results of foreign countries in order to better promote the development of our sports arbitration.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D997.4
本文編號(hào)：2318566
[Abstract]:The International Court of Sports Arbitration (Court of Arbitration for Sport, for short CAS) is the most authoritative sports arbitration institution in the world. With the reform and development of CAS in recent years, the arbitration mechanism of CAS has become more and more mature. In the field of sports arbitration, the ruling made by CAS has great authority and binding force. However, CAS is essentially an arbitration body, and its ruling must also be reviewed by a national court. According to the rules of the CAS, the seat of arbitration for all CAS awards is Lobsang, Switzerland. Thus, the judicial review body for the CAS decision is the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. In earlier judicial reviews, CAS's decision was more upheld by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. But in recent years, with the increasing number of cases, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court is no longer inclined to uphold the authority of the CAS, so the CAS decision was annulled by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. These cases exemplify the problems of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in reviewing the CAS ruling. In A v. WADA, there is a dispute about the understanding of specific rules and the jurisdiction of CAS. In the case of Spanish Club v. Portuguese Football Club, there were procedural issues such as the respondent's defence overtime, and the substantive issue of the CAS ruling being revoked without justification. The legal principle of "one thing is no longer reasonable" has also been improperly applied; In Canas v. International Men's Tennis Association, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court improperly annulled CAS's ruling in this case; in Meca-Medina v. European Commission, the jurisdiction of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court was violated, etc. In view of these problems, the author thinks that we can study and perfect them from two aspects: at the system level, we should make clear the principle of rule interpretation, determine the standard of CAS jurisdiction, and follow the strict judicial review procedure of arbitration award. Comprehensive examination of factual and legal issues; At the level of rules, the jurisdiction of CAS judicial review should be unified and the mechanism of world sports law should be established. Through the research on this issue, the value of CAS arbitration can be better reflected, the smooth running of sports events can be better protected, and the judicial review of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court can also play a better role. All these indicate that it is of practical significance to study the issue of judicial review of CAS decision from the angle of case. Both in practice and in theory, the sports arbitration system and the judicial review system of sports arbitration in China can learn from the experience and research results of foreign countries in order to better promote the development of our sports arbitration.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D997.4
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 蘭仁迅;體育仲裁的獨(dú)立性與強(qiáng)制性[J];法學(xué);2004年11期
2 朱瑤;;對國際商事仲裁中一事不再理原則適用的思考[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年14期
3 郭樹理;;足球與法律[J];讀書;2007年07期
4 李智;;國際體育仲裁中一事不再理原則的適用[J];湖北體育科技;2009年05期
5 于善旭,張劍,陳巖,宋國緒,李雁軍,李實(shí);建立我國體育仲裁制度的研究[J];體育科學(xué);2005年02期
6 張春良;;論北京奧運(yùn)會(huì)仲裁的法律問題[J];體育科學(xué);2007年09期
7 陳元欣;王健;;論體育仲裁監(jiān)督機(jī)制的構(gòu)建[J];體育學(xué)刊;2007年01期
8 喬一涓;;2010年溫哥華冬奧會(huì)仲裁案件述評[J];體育學(xué)刊;2010年09期
9 黃世席;;國際體育仲裁裁決的撤銷[J];天津體育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年05期
10 黃世席;;國際體育仲裁管轄權(quán)的新發(fā)展[J];體育與科學(xué);2011年05期
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條
1 韓勇;體育紀(jì)律處罰研究[D];北京體育大學(xué);2006年
2 黃世席;國際體育仲裁制度研究[D];武漢大學(xué);2004年
本文編號(hào)：2318566
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/2318566.html
最近更新
教材專著
