Email of the day: Why in the hell does a Swiss court have jurisdiction over the IAAF which isn't based in Switzerland?

CAS is a swiss arbitration organization.

Arbitration organizations are always overseen by courts.

That is how the world works. Courts throughout the world are not going to defer to an arbitration organizations which is not subject to judicial review.

arbitrators are always overseen by courts wrote:

CAS is a swiss arbitration organization.

Arbitration organizations are always overseen by courts.

That is how the world works. Courts throughout the world are not going to defer to an arbitration organizations which is not subject to judicial review.

Then its time to create a different arbitration system.

The swiss should stick to chocolate and hording ill gotten gains.

brojos smarter bro wrote:

LetsRun.com wrote:

Can the IAAF due that here?

I don't no if them can due that anywheres.

I'm convinced they throw in random typos just to mess with y'all.

oboeviolin wrote:

arbitrators are always overseen by courts wrote:

CAS is a swiss arbitration organization.

Arbitration organizations are always overseen by courts.

That is how the world works. Courts throughout the world are not going to defer to an arbitration organizations which is not subject to judicial review.

Then its time to create a different arbitration system.

The swiss should stick to chocolate and hording ill gotten gains.

OK, you can posit whatever you want.

National courts are not going to agree to defer sporting matters to a set or arbiters who are not subject to judicial review. You seem to think the alternative is one unreviewable set or arbiters. The alternative is for IAAF to be subject to the courts of every single nation they operate in. That is not going to be productive for trying to operate with one set of rules consistent across many nations with different laws.

Now the view is that a Swiss court shouldn't have jurisdiction over the IAAF, because it overruled the CAS decision upholding the IAAF, but previously the view here was that CAS shouldn't have jurisdiction over the IAAF because it overruled it. Basically, the issue of jurisdiction comes up on this website only when you don't like a decision that a court makes.

zxcvzxcv wrote:

Now the view is that a Swiss court shouldn't have jurisdiction over the IAAF, because it overruled the CAS decision upholding the IAAF, but previously the view here was that CAS shouldn't have jurisdiction over the IAAF because it overruled it. Basically, the issue of jurisdiction comes up on this website only when you don't like a decision that a court makes.

exactly, the imbeciles here want decisions determined by a plebiscite of Letsrun readers.

Within the length of time it took to post this and ask the questions within the post, you could have found the answer yourself.

The lack of ability to do basic research on many topics by two supposedly educated brothers is absolutely astounding.

Kung Pow Chicken wrote:

brojos smarter bro wrote:

I don't no if them can due that anywheres.

I'm convinced they throw in random typos just to mess with y'all.

You wouldn't be convinced if you ever heard one of them speak. They really are mental midgets.

The issue isn't whether the Swiss Federal Court has jurisdiction - it does - but can Semenya show the CAS decision was wrong in its interpretation of the evidence, and what can the IAAF do to maintain the CAS decision was the right one. The Federal Court will only overturn the CAS decision if it was an incorrect application of the principles to the facts, or if new and persuasive evidence can be introduced to support Semenya's case. It won't simply choose to come to a different view of the evidence from CAS; it will have to be able to show CAS got it wrong. Only once has a CAS decision been previously overturned on appeal on the merits of the case. So the odds are against Semenya getting the decision she wants. The best she gets is only likely to be a temporary stay in the implementation of the new IAAF rules.

Guys, it took me about 10 minutes of superficial research to find out about how these appeal work. See

"Appeals against Arbitral Awards by the CAS" by Dr. Stephan Netzle as published on page 19 here:

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Bulletin202_2011.pdf

Yeah, it's a little bit longer than one paragraph, but not much, bear with me.

The CAS is an arbitration panel. Parties submit voluntarily to such panel's jurisdiction. Once they have done so, the panel's awards are binding on them - unless they are violating some minimum requirements of the applicable state legal system (such as right to be heard, basic procedural matters, ordre public etc.), that is. In which case a party can appeal to a state court - in our case, against a CAS award to the Swiss Federal Tribunal. Swiss for the simple reason that the CAS is a Swiss arbitration panel. If it was in Moscow, Russian courts would have jurisdiction. Which is why people prefer to submit to Swiss arbitration (and constitute arbitration panels there) rather than arbitration in Russia. Or, e.g. for commercial matters, the ICC in Paris. You would want a working and independent judicial system to supervise arbitration.

On the initial question: So, CAS rulings are binding on the IAAF. If the Swiss Federal Tribunal sets aside the award, there is no more binding award (interestingly, the Swiss court is also entitled to set aside the award on a point of law rather than procedural matters, however only if there are new facts). As the IAAF has submitted to arbitration by CAS, and the CAS is supervised by the Swiss Federal Tribunal, the IAAF has indirectly submitted to the fact that the latter has influence on the case. That's it.

These appeals generally do not have suspensive effect. But the Swiss court can take precautionary measures in order to maintain the status quo or to provisionally secure interests which are at risk until it decides finally on the appeal.

I am a German native speaker (no, not Swiss but nearby). My apologies if the English legal terminology might not be exactly on the point.

The email of the day was someone too lazy or stupid to spend even ten minutes looking into the structure of the CAS and IAAF?

Y'all need better emails.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The CAS is a court of arbitration; its jurisdiction is because the IAAF agreed to it, and that's because the olympics agreed to it.

The IAAF will never accept the decision, so hopefully it will demand that the olympics withdraw from the arbitration agreement or, better yet, dump the olympics. The olympics is the centerpiece of failure and corruption that prevents track from being popular.

Yes the Olympics is the centerpiece of failure. And the IAAF is under the thumb of the Olympics. So the IAAF will not defy this decision.

Isn't it fun to be ruled by these SJW oligarchs? According to the Guardian article, except one time by Ajee Wilson, a non DSD woman has not won a diamond league 800 since 2015. Say good-bye to women's sports. The SJWs can't help but destroy everything they touch.

don't bother sending email wrote:

Umm, basics here.

IAAF by its Constitution allows appeals to the CAS.

CAS by its Constitution allows appeals to the Swiss Federal Court.

What's not to understand?

+1

Some people need to understand some very basic concepts. Governance being one of them.

celery wrote:

Isn't it fun to be ruled by these SJW oligarchs? According to the Guardian article, except one time by Ajee Wilson, a non DSD woman has not won a diamond league 800 since 2015. Say good-bye to women's sports. The SJWs can't help but destroy everything they touch.

So each time, one with extra steroids won? And yet, the Swiss still aren't convinced?

Armstronglivs wrote:

The Federal Court will only overturn the CAS decision if it was an incorrect application of the principles to the facts, or if new and persuasive evidence can be introduced to support Semenya's case. It won't simply choose to come to a different view of the evidence from CAS; it will have to be able to show CAS got it wrong.

You're right about the potential of new (previously unavailable) evidence to be relevant, but otherwise it sounds like what you're describing is the regular appellate standard of review that courts would apply to a trial court (i.e., de novo for questions of law). With arbitration, it actually doesn't matter if the CAS "got it wrong" or if there was "an incorrect application of the principles to the facts" because the CAS is the one entrusted with deciding principles of law. The court is mostly just there to ensure that the process itself was fair (e.g., a judge wasn't bribed).

Therefore in the meantime, contrary to what some others have been saying, this Y chromosome person is NOT allowed to compete in XX chromosome women's events.

Women's events are for XX women only, not Y chromosome people.

brojos smarter bro wrote:

Kung Pow Chicken wrote:

I'm convinced they throw in random typos just to mess with y'all.

You wouldn't be convinced if you ever heard one of them speak. They really are mental midgets.

brojos = the true village idiots

OUT WITH COE, HE IS INCOMPETENT.

He will not be re-elected after this embarrassing debacle.

I think you will find the correct application of procedure is a little wider than that.