Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF) v. International Hockey Federation (FIH) [Qualification of the Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation for the Beijing Olympic Games] No. 4A_424/2008 - Swiss International Arbitration Law Reports (SIALR) - 2009 Vol. 3 Nos. 1 & 2

Page Count:

16 pages

Media Description:

1 PDF Download

Published:

December, 2009

Practice Areas:

PDF202.13 KB

$40.00

Description:

Preview Page

Headnote

■ Whether a party has a right to challenge a decision made by the

FIH Judicial Commission is a question of entitlement as a matter of

substantive law, not one of arbitral jurisdiction. Such a question will

not be reviewed in setting aside proceedings brought against an

award made by a CAS panel.

■ By bringing arbitration proceedings before the CAS, a party

assumes that an arbitral tribunal constituted by the CAS has

jurisdiction; such party thereby forfeits its right to object to arbitral

jurisdiction in setting aside proceedings against the award made by

the CAS panel.

Summary of the Decision

On the occasion of the qualification tournament for the Olympic

Summer Games in Beijing, the women’s team of the Azerbaijan Field

Hockey Federation (AFHF) lost against the Spanish team. Doping tests

were carried out; two players of the Spanish team tested positive and

then requested a hearing before the FIH internal Judicial Commission.

The Judicial Commission imposed no sanctions, having found that one

Spanish player had violated anti-doping rules through no fault of her

own, and the second player had not violated any anti-doping rules.

AFHF, the players of its team and the Azerbaijani National Olympic

Committee filed an application with a CAS ad hoc Division and sought

an award declaring that AFHF should replace the Spanish team at the

Beijing Olympic Games. The ad hoc CAS panel dismissed the

application on the ground that the applicants did not have the required

standing to challenge the decision by the Judicial Commission.

Two further arbitration proceedings were brought by the same parties

essentially with the same prayer for relief; the first one was brought

without success. In the second proceedings, the ad hoc CAS panel

dismissed the claim again. AFHF eventually filed an application to set

aside before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court requesting that the two