The specific issues of rendering provisional (preliminary) measures in the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne

---

This article analyzes the specificity of granting provisional measures within proceedings in the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne (CAS/TAS). The research on this topic has barely been covered in Russian legal science. The article examines the bodies authorized for ordering provisional measures and, in particular, the recently adopted restrictions to the competence of state courts to grant preliminary measures within ordinary and appellant proceedings. The article also provides analysis of the timeline (even before arbitral panel has been formed), prerequisites and conditions for such measures, the cumulative application of these conditions, the uniformity (and more likely lack of uniformity) in practice of application of these conditions, and tendencies of their changing and evolution. The prerequisites for provisional measures applicable the CAS/TAS are as follows: 1. Whether possible harm is irreparable; 2. Whether the positive outcome is probable; 3. Whether the interest of the claimant overwhelms the interests of the respondent to leave the status quo. The article analyzes the practical application of these prerequisites. The article examines types (untypical for international commercial and international investment arbitration), terms, and borders of provisional measures, and also cases when provisional measure is the same as the main relief sought (which raises several procedural risks). The author examines whether provisional measures rendered by CAS may be subject to annulment (and whether there are some exceptions from a general rule), and gives a review of crucial issues regarding their enforcement: either voluntary or through sports organizations. While enforcement through state courts is also theoretically possible, in practice one may face different complications depending on the particular legal system. The article reviews the recent provisional measures requested, declined, and ordered during the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, and offers reasons for refusal to grant them in favor of Russian sportsmen.

About the author: Natalia Kisliakova – Ph.D. student, Moscow State Institute of International Relationships (University), Moscow, Russia; German Chancellor Fellow (in the field of sports arbitration).

Citation: Kisliakova N. (2017) Osobennosti vyneseniya vremennykh (obespechitel’­nykh) mer v mezhdunarodnom sportivnom arbitrazhnom sude v Lozanne [The specific issues of rendering provisional (preliminary) measures in the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.3, pp.62–75. (In Russian).

References

Arroyo M. (2013) Arbitration in Switzerland: The Practitioner’s Guide, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

Blackshaw I. (2006) Provisional and Conservatory Measures – an Under-Utilised Resource in the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The Entertainment and Sports Law Journal, vol.4, no.2, p.6. Available at: http://doi.org/10.16997/eslj.92 (accessed: 10.08.2016).

Hofmann K. (2009) Zur Notwendigkeit eines institutionellen Sportschiedsgerichtes in Deutschland, Hamburg: Kovač.

Kaufmann-Kohler G., Bärtsch P. (2006) The Ordinary Arbitration Procedure of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. In: Blackshaw I.S., Soek J., Siekmann R.C.R. (eds.) The Court of Arbitration for Sport, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp.69–98.

Khvaley V.V. (2016) Novoe zakonodatel'stvo ob arbitrazhe: zhit' stalo luchshe, zhit‘ stalo veselee [New legislation on arbitration: life became better, life became more joyful]. Zakon, no.5, pp.87–95. (In Russian).

Kobakhidze D.I. (2017) Nekotorye voprosy primeneniya obespechitelnykh mer v mezhdunarodnom kommercheskom arbitrazhe [Certain questions of implementation the interim measures in international commercial arbitration]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.1, pp.108–121. (In Russian).

Kurochkin S.A. (2008) Gosudarstvennye sudy v treteyskom razbiratel'stve i mezhdunarodnom kommercheskom arbitrazhe [State courts in arbitration procedure and international commercial arbitration], Moscow: Wolters Kluwer. (In Russian).

Lew J., Mistelis L., Kröll S. (2003) Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, The Hague; New York: Kluwer Law International.

Mavromati D., Reeb M. (2015) The Code of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: Commentary, Cases and Materials, Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

Moses M.L. (2012) The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Nagornaya E.N. (2016) Pravovaya priroda sudebnogo prikaza v arbitrazhnom protsesse (na osnove resheniya Ekonomicheskogo suda SNG ot 17 iyunya 2016 goda [The legal nature of the judicial order in arbitration procedure (based on the decision of the Economic Court of the CIS on 17^th of June 2016)]. Vestnik arbitrazhnoy praktiki, no.3, pp.13–20. (In Russian).

Netzle S. (2007) Die Praxis des Tribunal du Sport (TAS) bei vorsorglichen Massnahmen. In: Rigozzi A., Bernasconi M. (eds.) The Proceedings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport: CAS & FSA SAV Conference, Lausanne 2006: colloquium, Berne: Editions Weblaw; Zurich: Schulthess, pp.133–153.

Oschütz F. (2005) Sportschiedsgerichtsbarkeit: Die Schiedsverfahren des Tribunal Arbitral du Sport vor dem Hintergrund des schweizerischen und deutschen Schiedsverfahrensrechts, Berlin: Duncker&Humblot.

Osterwalter S., Kaiser M. (2011) Von Rechtstaat zum Richtersport? Fragen zum vorsorglichen Rechtsschutz in der Sportschiedsgerichtsbarkeit der Schweiz. Zeitschrift für Sport und Recht (SpuRt), no.6, pp.230–236.

Pogosyan E.V. (2011) Formy razresheniya sportivnykh sporov: monografiya [The forms of solving sport disputes: a monograph]. Moscow: Wolters Kluwer. (In Russian).

Redfern A. (2004) Interim Measures. In: Newman L.W., Hill R.D. (eds.) The Leading Arbitrators’ Guide to International Arbitration, Huntington, NY: Juris Publishing, pp.217–243.

Redfern A. (2014) Interim Measures. In: Newman L.W., Hill R.D. (eds.) The Leading Arbitrators’ Guide to International Arbitration, 3rd ed., Huntington, NY: Juris Publishing, pp.367–404.

Rigozzi A. (2006) Provisional Measures in CAS Arbitration. In: Blackshaw I.S., Soek J., Siekmann R.C.R. (eds.) The Court of Arbitration for Sport, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp.216–234.

Roth H. (1999) Der vorsorgliche Rechtsschutz im internationalen Sportrecht. In: Scherrer U. (ed.) Preliminary remedies in international Sports Law, Zürich: Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag, pp.11–42.

Schimke M. (1999) Einstweiliger Rechtsschutz im deutschen Sport. In: Scherrer U. (ed.) Preliminary remedies in international Sports Law, Zürich: Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag, pp.53–66.

Von Segesser G. (2007). Vorsorgliche Massnahmen im Internationalen Schiedsprozess. ASA Bulletin, vol.25, pp.473–486.

Walther F. (2007) Vorläufiger Rechtsschutz durch Schiedsgerichte. In: Rigozzi A., Bernasconi M. (eds.) The Proceedings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport: CAS & FSA SAV Conference, Lausanne 2006: colloquium, Berne: Editions Weblaw; Zurich: Schulthess, pp.111–132.

Wise A.N. (1999) Provisional Legal Relief in Sports Cases. In: Scherrer U. (ed.) Preliminary remedies in international Sports Law, Zürich: Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag, pp.87–93.

Wyler R. (1999) Procedure and provisional legal protection during the Olympic Games. In: Scherrer U. (ed.) Preliminary remedies in international Sports Law, Zürich: Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag, pp.43–51.

Yesilirmak A. (2005) Provisional Measures in International Commercial Arbitration, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

Zaytsev A.I. (2006) Problemy pravovogo regulirovaniya obespecheniya iska [Issues of legal regulation of securing a claim]. In: Problemy iska i iskovoy formy zashchity prav: materialy Vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii, Kubanskiy gosudarstvennyy agrarnyy universitet [Problems related to claim and remedies in the form of a suit: Materials of all-Russian academic and practical сconference, Kuban’ state agricultural university], Krasnodar, pp.70–80. (In Russian).