Turrini v. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and International Military Sports Council (CISM) [Turrini and the World Military Swimming Championship] No. 4A_10/2009 - Swiss International Arbitration Law Reports (SIALR) - 2009 Vol. 3 Nos. 1 & 2

Page Count: 

12 pages

Media Description: 

1 PDF Download

Published: 

December, 2009

Practice Areas: 

Court Decisions

Subscribe to download

PDF206.55 KB

$40.00

Add to cart

Description: 

Originally from:
Swiss International Arbitration Law Reports - 2009 Vol. 3 Nos. 1 & 2

Preview Page

Headnote

■ An application to set aside which does not contain any reference to

the provisions of the Federal Private International Law Act or the

Federal Supreme Court Act and which simply appeals against a

decision in general terms is inadmissible and the Federal Supreme

Court will not consider the merits of such an application in

accordance with the simplified procedure set out in article 108(1)(b)

FSCA.

 

Summary of the Decision

 

Mr. Federico Turrini, a professional swimmer enlisted in the Italian

army, tested positive for a prohibited substance on the occasion of the

4th annual world military swimming championships in Hyderabad, India,

organised by the International Military Sports Council (CISM).

 

Disciplinary proceedings ensued before the Disciplinary Committee of

CISM which eventually sanctioned the swimmer, without, however,

suspending him. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) brought

arbitration proceedings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)

seeking inter alia to have Mr. Turrini suspended for a two-year period.

 

The CAS panel in its award set aside the decision by the Disciplinary

Committee of CISM, annulled the swimmer’s competition results and

suspended him for two years. Mr. Turrini brought setting aside

proceedings before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court and sought to have

the CAS panel’s award set aside.

 

The Court declared the application to set aside inadmissible.

 

The Court firstly recalled that the grounds which are admissible in

setting aside proceedings against an award are set out in article 190(2)

FPILA in an exhaustive manner and that the Court will only examine

those grounds which are raised and properly explained (art. 77(3)

FSCA). The Court further held that the petitioner manifestly disregarded

such requirements in that he simply expressed his intention to “appeal

against a decision which on the face of its reasons appears to be

illegitimate, illogical and inconsistent” based on an alleged belated