从困局到变局:析PECHTEIN案对国际体育仲裁院的挑战及应对

From Dilemmas to Solutions: The Impact of the PECHTEIN Case on the CAS and Its Response

自20世纪80年代以来,随着体育运动的国际化,体育比赛日益成为国际性事务。为适应国际社会对大量体育比赛纠纷与争端解决的迫切需要,国际奥林匹克委员会在瑞士洛桑创建了国际体育仲裁院(CAS)。经过30余年的发展,如今CAS已成为当今国际体育领域最具影响力和最被广泛接受的仲裁机构,在全球体育纠纷解决中发挥核心作用。然而,2015年1月,德国慕尼黑高等法院在PECHTEIN诉德国冰联和国际冰联一案中,对CAS裁决不予承认的判决则开创了在瑞士联邦法院之外公开挑战CAS裁决效力的先河,折射出现行CAS在保障仲裁中立性方面的制度缺陷。作为欧盟核心成员国的上诉法院,慕尼黑高等法院的此举无疑动摇了CAS固有的管辖权和裁决承认与执行的基础,给其今后裁决的执行蒙上了阴影。因此,CAS应重视此判决带来的挑战与批评,并依循仲裁中立的法治精神,从内部ICAS的成员结构、仲裁员的委任和首席仲裁员的指定方式等方面加以改进和完善。PECHTEIN案虽与我国无涉,但其判决意义对我国亦有相当重要的资鉴意义。未来我国在参考CAS模式建立体育仲裁制度的过程中,应注意到其在中立性制度设计方面的缺陷,并在实现机构管理层管理地位中立和仲裁程序的实质中立2方面作出更多的努力。

Since 1980＇s, sports becomes an international matter among states due to its internationalization. In order to meet the active demands of thesettlement of sports disputes in the international society, the International Olympic Committee established the Court of Arbitration of Sport（hereinafter＂CAS＂） in Lausanne, Switzerland in 1984. Through more than 30 years development, CAS has become the most important and popular arbitration institutionin the field of international sports. But in January, 2015, the case of Claudia PECHTEIN v. International Skating Union（hereinafter＂PECHTEIN Case＂）happened in Germany. The case is regarded as the first case that overturned the validity of CAS ＇s award outside the Swiss Federal Tribunal in thedevelopment history of the CAS. The paper introduced the content of the decision made by the Munich Higher Regional Court in the PECHTEIN Case andrevealed the defects of the Arbitration Impartiality systems of CAS through the research approaches of the case-analysis, and statutes-analysis. To avoidsuch the fallout as the PECHTEIN Case, the Paper suggests the CAS pushing for the reforms in the fields of the member structure of ICAS, theappointments mechanism of arbitrators and the method of indentifying the Chairman of a CAS panel. Although our country did not involve the PECHTEINCase, it is beneficial to the establishment of sports arbitration system in China. We should pay more attentions to the legal constructions of neutralpositions about the government organization and arbitral procedure of the arbitration institution in future.