The case of Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland
In a previous blog post (click here) the Mutu and Pechstein case and the ECHR decision of October 2, 2018 were discussed in detail.
The ECtHR had not identified any fundamental objections with regard to the operation of the CAS.
It was nevertheless found that two of the seven judges of the ECtHR were of the opinion that the CAS did not comply with various requirements imposed by the ECHR.
The decision also stated that the case could be requested to be referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights.
Given the dissenting opinion of the aforementioned judges, this could again have led to an interesting decision.
No reference to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights
The parties have indeed requested – on the basis of art. 43 of the Convention – to have the case heard by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights.
On 4 February 2019, however, the Grand Chamber rejected the request for consideration of the Mutu and Pechstein case.
This is evident from a press release of February 5, 2019 of the European Court of Human Rights.
This means that the decision of October 2, 2018 is finalized.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport also issued one on February 5, 2019 press release issued following this decision.
She naturally welcomes this and notes that she has now taken the necessary measures to allow public hearings.
In practice, a person or party must request a public hearing.
This is a consequence of the amendment of article R57 of the CAS Code that came into effect on January 1, 2019.
After all, the ECtHR had found a violation on that point.