Introduction: The Final Whistle in Sports Law
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland, effectively acts as the supreme court for the sports world. When a club, player, or federation loses a decision at the FIFA, TFF, or WADA level, the CAS appeal is often their last resort. But this is not a simple review; it is a complex, front-loaded, and expensive process. Understanding the strict CAS appeal timeline, the unique rules on new evidence, and the significant costs involved is non-negotiable. A misstep in procedure can be just as fatal to a case as a weak argument on the merits.
The Legal Framework: Navigating the CAS Code
All proceedings are governed by the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration. For appeals, Articles R47 through R59 are the critical rulebook. Failing to comply with this framework is the fastest way to have an appeal dismissed.
The Critical Timeline
The CAS appeal timeline is notoriously short and unforgiving.
- Article R47 (The 21-Day Deadline): The most important rule. An appellant (the party filing the appeal) must lodge a Statement of Appeal with CAS within 21 days of receiving the reasoned decision from the previous body (e.g., the FIFA Appeal Committee). This deadline is almost always final and cannot be extended.
- Court Office Fee: Upon filing, the appellant must pay a non-refundable CHF 1,000 (Swiss Francs) Court Office fee. Failure to pay this on time (typically 10 days) can render the appeal inadmissible.
- Article R49 (The Appeal Brief): This is the main legal document, containing all the facts, legal arguments, and evidence. It is typically due 20 days after the CAS Court Office notifies the parties that the file is ready. This is an extremely short window to build a complete case.
Evidence: A De Novo Review
This is the most misunderstood part of a CAS appeal. A CAS proceeding is generally not just a review of the previous body’s mistakes.
- Article R57 (Full Power of Review): The CAS Panel has “full power to review the facts and the law.” This means it conducts a $de novo$ hearing, or a “fresh” trial.
- New Evidence: Because it is a de novo hearing, parties are generally permitted to introduce new evidence and new witnesses that were not presented at the first-instance hearing (e.g., at the FIFA DRC). This makes the appeal a complete re-litigation of the entire dispute.
The Costs of Arbitration
Beyond the initial CHF 1,000 fee, the costs are substantial.
- Article R64 (Advance of Costs): The CAS will order the parties (usually split 50/50) to pay an “Advance of Costs” to cover the Panel’s fees and administrative expenses. This sum is often between CHF 30,000 and CHF 50,000, or more in complex cases.
- The “Loser Pays” Principle: The final award will state who bears the arbitration costs. Under Article R64.5, the losing party is typically ordered to pay the “lion’s share” of the costs and may also be ordered to pay a portion of the winning party’s legal fees.
Case Studies: The Process in Practice
How these procedural rules are applied in real life has created dramatic, high-stakes outcomes.
Case Study 1: Sun Yang v. WADA (Procedural Fairness & Evidence)
This high-profile anti-doping case is a masterclass in CAS procedure.
- The Dispute: The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed a FINA decision that had cleared swimmer Sun Yang of a doping violation.
- Procedural Points: The case was a full $de novo$ hearing, conducted publicly at the athlete’s request. It involved complex witness testimony and expert evidence. The first CAS award (an 8-year ban) was famously annulled by the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT), not on the merits, but on procedural grounds—the SFT found the Panel President was demonstrably biased.
- The Lesson: This case shows that the CAS process is subject to review by the SFT, but only for extreme procedural errors (like bias), not for a wrong decision on the facts. A new CAS panel had to re-hear the entire case, illustrating the $de novo$ principle in action.
Case Study 2: Michel Platini v. FIFA (Timelines & Costs)
This case highlights the financial consequences of a failed appeal.
- The Dispute: Michel Platini appealed his ban from all football-related activities, which was imposed by the FIFA Ethics Committee. He had to strictly follow the 21-day timeline from the FIFA Appeal Committee’s decision to file at CAS.
- Procedural Points: Platini lost his appeal. The CAS Panel reduced his ban but upheld the finding of guilt.
- The Lesson (Costs): The final CAS award (CAS 2016/A/4474) is a stark example of Article R64.5. Platini was not only responsible for his own significant legal fees but was also ordered to pay CHF 22,000 to FIFA as a contribution to their legal costs. Furthermore, he was ordered to bear the entire costs of the arbitration himself. This case perfectly illustrates the “loser pays” principle.
Conclusion & Legal Tips
The CAS appeal process is a high-stakes, high-cost, and procedurally unforgiving system. Success is not just about the merits of your case, but about mastering its unique rules.
- Tip 1 (Timeline): Diarise the 21-day appeal deadline immediately upon receiving the reasoned decision. It is non-negotiable.
- Tip 2 (Evidence): Do not assume you are limited to the old record. Prepare for a full $de novo$ hearing under Article R57.
- Tip 3 (Costs): Be transparent with your client from day one about the CHF 1,000 court fee, the substantial Advance of Costs, and the “loser pays” rule.
