A. v. World Anti-doping Agency [The Portuguese Football Federation] - Swiss International Arbitration Law Reports (SIALR) - 2007 Vol. 1 Nos. 1 & 2

Page Count:

12 pages

Media Description:

1 PDF Download

Published:

December, 2007

Practice Areas:

PDF182.94 KB

$40.00

Description:

Preview Page

Headnote

An arbitrator does not violate the principle of good faith, which is part

of in public policy, where he imposes a sanction for a doping offence

more severe than that issued by a first instance authority, provided that

such sanction falls within the boundaries established by the parties’

prayers for relief.

Summary of the Decision

A. is a professional football player and a registered member of the

Portuguese Football Federation (the “FPF”). After A. tested positive for

a controlled substance, the Disciplinary Committee of the FPF

suspended A. for 6 months. A. appealed the decision to the Judicial

Board of the FPF which annulled the suspension and terminated the

proceedings. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) then filed an

appeal before a Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel seeking a

suspension of 24 months. By an award dated 24 January 2007, the CAS

panel suspended A. for 12 months. A. then brought setting aside

proceedings against the CAS panel’s award on the ground that the

award was incompatible with public policy in that (1) the award

violated the prohibition of reformatio in peius by levying on appeal a

more severe sanction than the authority below and that (2) the award

disregarded the principle of good faith.

The Federal Supreme Court left open the question whether the

prohibition of reformatio in peius is part and parcel of public policy.

The court then held that on appeal, the CAS panel had full authority to

review the facts and the law and may impose a sanction that is more or

less severe than that issued by the first instance authority, provided that

the sanction imposed is within the range established by the prayers for

relief of the parties. Accordingly, where the WADA sought a suspension

of 24 months, the CAS panel’s sanction of 12 months did not violate the

principle of good faith and thus public policy.

Accordingly, the application to set aside was dismissed.