Valverde v. 1. Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI), 2. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and 3. International Cycling Union (UCI) [Valverde I] No. 4A_644/2009 - Swiss International Arbitration Law Reports (SIALR) - 2010 Vol. 4 Nos. 1 & 2

Page Count: 

8 pages

Media Description: 

1 PDF Download

Published: 

November, 2013

Practice Areas: 

Court Decisions

Subscribe to download

PDF625.32 KB

$40.00

Add to cart

Description: 

Originally from: 

Swiss International Arbitration Law Reports 2010 Vol. 4 Nos. 1 and 2

Preview Page

No. 19

Valverde v. 1. Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI),

2. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and 3. International

Cycling Union (UCI)

[Valverde I]

No. 4A_644/2009

Headnote

■ A decision made by a private body, such as the competent body of

an arbitral institution, on the challenge of an arbitrator cannot be

brought directly before the Federal Supreme Court.

■ Such decision may be reviewed only in setting aside proceedings

against the award. The petitioner is then entitled to complain that

the arbitral tribunal was not properly constituted.

Summary of the Decision

On 16 June 2009 Mr. Alejandro Valverde Belmonte, a professional

cyclist, filed a statement of appeal before the Court of Arbitration for

Sport (CAS) against the decision by the Tribunale Nazionale Antidoping

[Anti-Doping National Tribunal] of the Comitato Olimpico Nazionale

Italiano [Italian National Olympic Committee]. A CAS panel composed

of Mr. Romano Subiotto QC (chairman), Mr. Ruggero Stincardini

(appointed by Mr. Valverde), and Prof. Ulrich Haas (appointed by

CONI), was constituted. By a preliminary decision on a request for

joinder, the CAS panel allowed the International Cycling Union (UCI)

and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to participate in the

arbitration proceedings as co-respondents. Mr. Valverde filed a

challenge against Prof. Haas. The Board of the International Council of

Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) dismissed this challenge.

Mr. Valverde filed an application to set aside before the Federal

Supreme Court against the decision of ICAS.

The application was declared inadmissible.

The Court held that the decision made by a private body, such as

ICAS, on the challenge of an arbitrator could not be brought directly

before the Court. Such decision could be reviewed only in setting aside

proceedings against the award on the basis that the arbitral tribunal was

not properly constituted.