By Sergey Yurlov, member of International Association of Sports Law (IASL), Master of Sports, Sport judge
The modern sport, if it strives for the further progressive development, cannot exist out of the bounds of the common legal framework. The basic principles of the law are pertinent to the area of sport. It is the right of every person for the examination of the case in the court, the right for the impartial hearings, for the assumption of innocence and so on. The state courts are overloaded by the cases. They also as the common arbitral courts are not always prepared for the sport specificity and spirit, fast decision making, judges do not have special knowledge (sic). Sport demands it.[3]
It is very important to solve disputes arising out of the sport nowadays. Sport disputes resolution procedure is a unique procedure. It has some special features include but are not limited to:
Since sports law is a complex branch of law, sport disputes resolution bodies have to apply a wide range of legal provisions;
Sport disputes should be adjudicated in the short run;
Sport is a specific sphere of social life, therefore judges should have special knowledge;
Sport disputes resolution bodies have to implement internal legal provisions mostly (for example, legal acts of sports federation or league or club);
Sport disputes resolution body’s ruling may be a subject to special enforcement proceedings etc.
Russian Federation has adopted only one Federal Law related to sport — Federal Law No.329-FZ, dated December 4, 2007 “On Physical culture and Sport in the Russian Federation” (as amended) (hereinafter — “Law on Sport”).
Unfortunately, Russian Law on Sport does not contain any provision regarding sport disputes resolution. Thus, there is no question of sport disputes resolution system in Russia. Since Law on Sport does not contain sport disputes resolution clauses, Russian sport federations have to adopt internal legal acts, codes on dispute resolution. This is a grave disadvantage of Russian sport related legislation.
Actually, there are two types of sport disputes resolution proceedings:
Proceedings in sport federation jurisdictional bodies;
Proceedings in sport arbitration courts (“sport arbitrazh”).
Sport federation jurisdictional body is a special organ, which is entitled to adjudicate sport related disputes. Sport federation jurisdictional body is a part of sport federation that works on a rolling basis, consists of professionals that have special knowledge and experience in certain sport (for example, swimming) and empowered to resolve all categories of sport disputes. It addresses all the issues arising out of the sport dispute, may take interim measures, award damages, etc. Jurisdictional bodies exist in sport federations all over the world, but there are a few of them in Russia – only in command sports like football and basketball. Generally speaking, these organs are the most competent, honest and cheapest tool of settling sport disputes.
Unfortunately, these organs are unavailable for Russian sportsmen.
Plenty of countries all over the world have established such jurisdictional bodies in order to solve all categories of sport disputes. The most powerful jurisdictional bodies exist in USA, Greece, and France. Unfortunately, Russian Federation has not established such bodies (in general, except command sports).
Since Russian Law on Sport does not establish legal framework for sport disputes resolution, Russian sportsmen have no opportunity to protect their rights using dispute resolution instruments. The legal regulations surrounding sport dispute resolution are a great problem for Russia. It is to be noted that there are no legal provisions related to sport dispute resolution in Russian statutory Acts.
Ideally, each sport federation should be entitled to constitute its own jurisdictional bodies and should have an obligation to consider sport disputes and address all issues related to them. The governing bodies of each sport federation should have an obligation to procure and support the developing of such a jurisdictional system. In Russia, we have only two sports arbitration courts. Unfortunately, these courts very rarely consider cases (only nine or 10 cases per year). Russian sports law science should examine the real practice of the courts, it should have cases to study but, unfortunately, Russian sport arbitration courts cannot establish real precedents on a rolling basis. If sports federation jurisdictional bodies do actually exist, they have no legal rights. From our point of view, these jurisdictional bodies should have the right to take interim measures (injunctions) to secure the claim upon request by one of the parties in a dispute.
Russian sport federations’ management must concern amending internal legal provisions related to sport disputes resolution regarding interim measures and injunctions, enforcement of rulings etc. It is a complex work that requires a lot of time.
When it comes to proceedings in sport arbitration courts, it is to be noted that Russian Federation has established two sport arbitration courts. There is one law establishing legal framework for arbitration courts — Federal Law No.102-FZ dated July 24, 2002 “Federal Law on arbitration courts in Russian Federation”. This Law imposes legal basis for sport arbitration courts.
There are two sport arbitration courts in Russia:
Court of Arbitration for Sport at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation;
Sport Arbitration Court.
Each court has adopted Procedural Rules regulating all aspects of sport disputes resolution:
Claim filing;
Establishing of a judicial panel;
Filing motions;
Court hearings (sessions);
Rendering a decision;
Enforcement of a decision.
Sport Arbitration procedure has several advantages and disadvantages. The advantages include but are not limited to:
Legal, financial and organizational independence from sport federation;
Sport Arbitration courts have strong legal base that provides more opportunities in decision-making;
Sport Arbitration court rulings are subject to enforcement proceedings;
Sport Arbitration courts may constitute ad hoc divisions at the most important sport competitions in order to solve sport disputes quickly and properly. For example, Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) establishes an ad hoc division at each Olympic Games.
It appears that this system has only one disadvantage — expensiveness. There are many expenditures (claim and motion filing; expertise; lawyers etc.). Therefore sportsmen use jurisdictional bodies (if exist) in order to solve their disputes where he can file motions without additional fees. Thus, it is very important to constitute own jurisdictional bodies due to procure sportsmen’s rights and help to advocate them in administrative / judicial order. Unfortunately, Russian Sport Management is unable to provide these simple things. Ideally, Sport Government’s goal (scope) should be real sportsmen’s rights protection using a wide range of legal instruments.
Sergey Yurlov lives in Moscow, Russia. He is a fifth-year student of Moscow State University, law faculty, civil procedure department. Yurlov is a Master of Sports, sport judge and a member of the International Association of Sports Law (IASL). Yurlov is a sportsman and has been swimming since childhood. Yurlov’s primary interest is in Sports Law, especially swimming legal regulation issues and sport disputes resolution. Yurlov has already published his own book (monograph) related to the legal framework of the sport of swimming in different countries in the world.
[3] See more: http://www.tpprf-arb.ru/en/sa
