国际体育活动及全球体育法中的一般法律原则

迪米特里奥•潘那吉奥托普勒斯（希腊），杨蓓蕾译

在解决纠纷的框架下，一般法律原则与法的基础理论、法律适用直接关联。此外，一般法律原则也是解释法律适用的重要工具。

在国际领域，一般法律原则的存在，保证了判断的一致性，也确保了法律的统一和管理的有效性。

1 关于一般法律原则

根据国际法及其理论，一般法律原则意味着法律教义，她是带有不同的文化色彩和不同管理制度的法律文化信仰。在国际层面，一般法律原则引用国家法律原则，这些法律原则适用于国际关系【注1】。这些原则改变了特定的国家性，通过国际法律体系为国际关系服务【注2】。通过这种方式，国内法与国际法律秩序衔接在一起，互相融合，确保了系统性的统一【注3】。

1.1 历史数据

首先，“一般法律原则”出现在雅典法律（即希腊法）及古希腊地方法律。柏拉图【注4】和亚里斯多德经常提到的法律原则形式如：比例原则【注5】和司法公正原则【注6】，后来被罗马法称为“公平原则”【注7】。与成文法【注8】相比，衡平法中的原则更有利于司法执行。在雅典法中，一般法律原则是研究与自然法相关司法含义时的争论焦点，形成了所谓的“诸神之战的本质”【注9】。这些法律原则中的很多原则已成为现代希腊民法典【注10】及现代国际法的基础原则，如“对事实公认不讳”的强制性在于“事先授予”【注11】，就像是国际法规则“有约必守”原则【注12】。

在20世纪早期，一般法律原则是实证法的内容，这在常设国际法庭（1920-1946）规章和今天的海牙国际法庭规章第38条1款有明确规定。规定指出国际法庭在缺乏国际条约和国际惯例的情况下，应适用作为国际法补充渊源的“文明国家公认的一般法律原则”【注13】。文明国家公认的一般法律原则含欧洲人权公约(EΣΔA) 第7条第2款，公民政治权利国际公约【注14】第15条第2款。

1.2 国际体育法院体系和一般法律原则

国际体育活动超出了国家的界限，形成国际特殊体育法律秩序【注15】，国家体育联合会遵守该秩序【注16】，国际体育法律秩序在处理国家内部事务时是有效的，在一定程度上取代国家法适用于国内体育（如Lex Sportiva）【注17】。

国际奥委会是体育的最高机构，通过国际体育联盟和国家奥委会的认可，国际奥委会成为制定奥林匹克宪章的关键机构（如奥林匹克法法)【注18】。

体育司法秩序的程序和渊源与传统的法律程序和渊源不同【注19】，传统的法律中国家法律要素占主导。为了解决纠纷和在体育系统内建立程序法，已设立了国际体育仲裁院（CAS）。在宪法规定的正义外，有一种司法叫“有机司法”，由“有机法院”裁定纠纷【注20】，就如CAS【注21】是体育法制管理的特殊机构。

几乎所有的解决体育纠纷的国际联盟的章程都有排他管辖的规定，设有具体的排他性条款【注22】。这样以来，尽管各国家体育法或国家联盟章程可能设定不同规章【注23】，但国家队是国际体育联盟成员，都要遵守国际联盟章程，国际体育仲裁院就具有排他性解决体育纠纷的管辖权【注24】。

尽管国际体育仲裁院在国家或国际层面上属于非政府仲裁机构，但它是管理国家层面和国际层面体育机构的重要组成部分【注25】。例如，遵循先例必须要建立在程序效率原则、公平正义原则和类似案件相同对待原则之上，只有这样程序才是有效的，否则便像很多人担心的那样，国际体育仲裁院冒充国家法庭，而产生很多问题【注26】。

2 一般法律原则在Lex Sportiva中的适用

在国际体育法律秩序即Lex Sportiva——奥林匹克法的框架下，研究一般法律原则的适用及其在国家体育法中的作用，也从一般法律原则的适用到本质功能及判例法本质的研究，也在研究一般法律原则在塑造法庭权威及Lex Sportiva系统稳定性方面的作用。

国际体育仲裁院和其临时机构通过适用一般法律原则【注27】，解决体育纠纷，国际体育仲裁院和临时机构的司法关键在于现有和公认的规则。这些现有和公认的规则不仅源于体育领域还源于国际领域主要法律系统【注28】。这些法律系统通常禁止滥用或适用不合理规则，这些都属于一般法律原则【注29】。CAS第98/2000判决书强调了体育领域一般法律原则的重要性。该判决书指出：“……在过去的若干年中，在仲裁纠纷解决中已创设一套不成文的法律原则，无论这些原则是源于章程还是国内法，只要与国内规则“公序良俗”不矛盾，国内和国际联盟必须遵守这些法律原则【注30】。”

在这点上，这些原则属于商法领域【注31】，但他们创设的Lex Sportiva并是一个非国家管辖范畴，一些学者同意判决书的观点（判决书认为是无效的），他们仅仅是强行应用，运动中的体育规则（lex ludica）是法律。但他们并没有将Lex Sportiva看做是非国家管辖体系，一些学者也这样认为，因为上述决定认为无效，但他们在任何案件中不断强化，体育规则才是法【注32】。这是因为，正如我们曾解释的，如果我们确实面对体育规则，就不是法。但，仅仅Lex Sportiva被排除【注33】。

为了了解一般法律原则的本质，并找出他们如何有利于体育领域法律执行及影响司法，我们研究一般法律原则的内容和种类。一般法律原则是Lex Sportiva的一个渊源。

3 分类

研究表明一般法律原则因适用范围不同而不同：（1）一般法律原则是国际原则；（2）一般法律原则适用于人权事件；（3）作为Lex Sportiva的体育本质原则不分国界被广泛认可；（4）国际体育法原则受到国际反兴奋剂法律的重视。

3.1 广泛接受的一般法律原则——“公平正义”

在CAS的决定中，经常会参考“非书面体育法原则”。所有的国际单项联合会及其俱乐部或运动员（就算他们不是国际体育单项联合会的会员）都应当遵守这些原则尤其是基本程序原则【注34】。正当程序原则和公平审判原则的重要性的特征是有权在法院或其他司法机构前对仲裁裁决书辩解。仲裁裁决书必须送达到当事人以为其提供适当的辩护。

3.1.1 武器平等原则【注3355】

此原则是国际公认的保障当事人听证的原则【注36】。权利含：（1）当事人有权准备辩护；（2）当事人参加到质证环节，对程序结果发表看法【注37】。

3.1.2 诚实信用原则

CAS认为运动员和俱乐部在体育司法管辖方面发生分歧时适用诚实守信原则【注38】。诚实守信原则适用取决于体育联盟作为合同方的义务。体育联盟要维护其成员的权利和竞争。要正确适用、平等对待【注39】，才能对每个人都正确适用法律法规，体育联盟的决定才有理由。 诚实守信原则【注40】，保障约定体育关系中的交易道德免于受到非法行为的侵害【注41】，这些非法行为侵害他人合理期望【注42】。

体育的特殊性【注43】指需要考虑到受伤的特殊性。这种伤害会导致受伤运动员违约，而在计算违约损害赔偿金时，运动员的身价不能忽视【注44】。在案件中，法院要考虑到体育独立性【注45】、足球运动员自由流动【注46】，还必须要考虑到体育市场。

CAS在此方面的解释扩宽了Lex Sportiva的范围，数据不仅基于一般法律原则应用，还基于其特殊性。

3.1.3 共同过失原则

体育特殊性与合同稳定性原则，受伤方有权索赔因对方违约而产生的所有损失不矛盾，适用共同过失原则【注47】。无论是俱乐部还是运动员违约，同样适用该规则。为确保公平，即使体育组织有不同观点【注48】，法院适用体育特殊性原则，非从局限的民法（普通法）角度解决案件，而是考虑到体育界特殊性及利益(当事人组成体育界)，以达成决定。因为平衡各方利益，决定被认为是合适的【注49】。

3.1.4 比例原则

比例原则【注50】在反兴奋剂案件应用。一般原则是体育法的基础，犯罪的严重性与惩罚度需成比例【注51】。根据现有立法 “……犯罪严重性与惩罚程度成比例”体育仲裁庭在很多案例已经证明比例原则的重要性【注52】。只要他们认为“不成比例”指滥用或不公正，根据“强化而非弱化立法者宗旨”原则，国际联盟所行使相关规则所规定的处罚应当被撤销【注53】。

3.1.5 从宽原则 —公平合理原则

从宽原则-公平合理原则【注54】和仲裁有本质不同。仲裁是在法律下，根据此原则 “双方当事人可要求仲裁庭根据从宽原则决定”【注55】。根据仲裁、和解一般条款，正如亚里斯多德在“裁判是宽松的力量”中所做的巧妙分析，调解要双方自愿、诚实信用，遵循从宽原则【注56】。 这是因为“当裁判被要求公平裁定，他所寻求的司法执行可能与现存法律不一致，甚至会相悖”【注57】。从本质上讲，如果仲裁员公允裁判，他可能仅仅依据公平原则裁定，便会忽视法律，不应用一般法律规则或抽象法律规则，他必须完全遵循案件事实。篮球仲裁规则第15条第1款证实了该观点。第15条第1款规定裁判适用“不参照任何国家或国际法的前提下实现一般司法公正”【注58】。在此基础上，协议本身赋予单方弃权或在另一方未支付工资时，原合同赋予追讨工资权利，裁判基于公平原则断案。

3.2 基本人权原则

保护基本人权原则，与宪法所赋予的保障人身自由权利直接相关，在体育司法中也适用。这些原则包括参加体育运动的自由权，运动员自身发展自由【注59】。当个人权利保护与公共利益冲突，优先保护公共利益【注60】，或与保护真实体育竞赛结果【注61】公正性冲突，优先公正性保护。特别是反兴奋剂案件，参加比赛和最终结果优先于个人权利保护。这也解释了为什么在这些案件中，上诉解决纠纷一成不变地适用严格责任原则【注62】。

3.3 体育特性原则

“体育法的一般或重要原则”、“体育公正问题”是CAS标志性特征，这些特征在世界各地体育活动中都得到了发展。这些原则关系到“体育完整性”，关系着人们的感觉和公共意识。正如日常生活和商业及体育中【注63】，诚实守信原则、完整性原则决定体育活动的态度。

3.3.1 “运动”原则

“运动”原则指整个体育和国际组织认可的优先原则。奥林匹克价值观和理念，好的公平的比赛要在实现“公平”的原则基础上【注64】。这些原则在国际体育框架和处理体育纠纷及奥林匹克纠纷方面广泛应用。

3.3.2 特别法优于普通法原则

特别法优于一般法原则，是公认的一般法律原则，应用于体育活动，为体育比赛设定规则，这个原则优于普通法【注65】。但是，只要规则与公共秩序相反，特别当规则与国家所确立的法律经济秩序重要原则相反，体育法体系（Lex Sportiva）中的规则不适用，此时，为保证体育界人身、财产自由，应适用国家法律。当人身、财产自由受到影响，如无国际体育法框架，应适用条约、习惯。

3.3.3 运动员协商原则

“事实”权【注66】和不公平谈判（特别是运动员）是加入公约约定性部分。因此，无论其是运动员还是俱乐部，只要仲裁管辖在加入公约中有规定且与双方当事人协商不公平事务，有必要保护无能力者。当事人的自主性会受到质疑，因双方当事人实际权利不平等，仲裁的法律基础受到质疑，交易道德要求诚实守信的一般法律原则及体育活动中协商原则【注67】。原因在于这些规则强制性剥夺了运动员协商能力及自愿缔结合同的自主性，造成运动员为参加体育活动而被迫接受。在此类案件中，运动员选择法院的自主性被剥夺，在联盟的框架下，他服从机构仲裁。然而，根据上述一般法律原则，这些国家和国际合同得不到保证，得不到公正审判，因为经常由普通法官解决。

3.3.4 一个体育联盟原则框架下的体育国家化原则

在一个体育联盟框架下的“体育国籍”》原则【注68】，含基础体育原则。基础体育原则塑造法律规则，法律规则以国内国际立法形式记录并为体育世界采纳【注69】。正如CAS决定中所写，体育法律秩序适用“体育国籍”原则，这是“独特的体育观”。根据法律，这个原则指运动员不以“合法公民”参与国际竞争，涉及个人地位和国家法律秩序【注70】。在体育司法中，“……有两个不同法律秩序，一个是公法，一个私法，公法私法不冲突交叉……FIBA规则，和篮球运动员的体育公民资格有关，不涉及国家管辖…”【注71】。体育本质原则在CAS和临时仲裁庭有很多应用的例子。根据体育仲裁庭的规定，案例必须在体育竞技和纪律程序规定的框架下【注72】。

3.4 国际体育法框架下的一般法律原则

直接证据规则【注73】、兴奋剂案件适用的“严格责任”要考虑瑞士法、国际仲裁法【注74】。

3.4.1 严格责任原则

世界反兴奋剂规则采纳“法律推定”，正如CAS及国内国际体育机构所做的。根据推定，在其身体里检测出违禁药品时即推定运动员违反兴奋剂规则而承担责任。否则，如体育司法惯例，反兴奋剂的斗争会受到质疑【注75】。在这个框架下，根据CAS仲裁决定，维护公平正义的进程在参赛者中加重，如今，参加体育运动和公平竞赛的权利放在重中之重。违反公平竞赛者受到严厉处罚【注76】，对CAS而言这是“体育公平”。运动员在兴奋剂检测呈阳性会受到处罚，即使其没有过错，也要受到处罚。运动员受到指控不是因为其责任未得到完全救济而是因为“严格责任”【注77】。

CAS在内的体育法庭传统上认为“运动员有责任确保体内无违禁物”【注78】。事实也证明了这一观点。违反兴奋剂的体育组织或俱乐部称他们不得不证明这一指控而承担责任，但一纸相关实验室所出具实验报告足以让他们豁免，而被告运动员则要承担更重的举证责任。

在“严格责任原则”框架下，适用“教条法原则”。根据此原则，如果违反反兴奋剂问题发生，所带来的危害比较严重，则适用接受刑罚。在纪律处罚中适用该原则，如使用促蛋白合成物质【注79】。

3.4.2 《相反证据》原则

根据CAS司法【注80】，严格责任原则【注81】通过《相反证据》原则以减轻责任。根据本原则，可推翻运动员有罪推定。但，考虑到运动员可操作空间狭小，这一原则可能被证明过于乐观。根据预定校对方法，从CAS自身及相关体育规则，推定被逐步推翻。如果证明运动员不知道他曾使用违禁物，或他对物质成分错误认识，或他身体产生违禁物，或他不知道这些物质或他曾显示终极关怀或第三方故意而导致其体内产生违禁物，推论被推翻。他得有“开脱罪名证据”或其他“具体证据”【注82】，以便铁上钉钉证明他无罪。当然，运动员提供的证据都会有唯一机会验证，以上所述都含一个普通基础的原则。CAS考虑到运动员的人身和运动经历和习惯在内的所有事实【注83】。

最后，整个问题只围绕两个基本点：一是运动员服用兴奋剂，另一方面所有其他运动员“纯粹”竞争。

4 体育法渊源和全球体育法判例的格式化

一般法律原则对仲裁很重要，CAS的态度决定其决定。这些法律原则适用不仅需要法律以适当方式授权而且新兴判例法包括安全措施以确保具体案例法不仅适用服务全球体育法系统。否则，一般法律原则成为全球体育法的法律渊源。

CAS和临时机构依据国际条约和惯例有权利调查重审（denovο）案件, 凭借自由心证从法律和事实角度审查指控的有效性，对“正当程序”审查【注84】，不介入国际体育和奥林匹克的技术性事件。裁判体育组织决定的不公正或比例失当或惩罚滥用或不公正，仅基于违反“一般法律原则”，行为无效【注85】。在一般法律原则下加强全球体育法系统。

当然，能将国家或国际法庭和司法组织的司法管辖和CAS仲裁程序等同。CAS仲裁员组成提供必要的仲裁程序保障，赋予仲裁必要的权威和效力，以至他们对当事人和体育社团、国际体育组织有约束力。

5 结论

5.1 为加强CAS作用，一般法律原则适用是体育界一直努力的部分。通过一般法律原则，将CAS法庭合法化，成为体育仲裁的私人组织机构。虽然CAS已经建立解决所有体育纠纷的排他性，但仍存在CAS管辖权局限性及谁可以影响CAS的裁决的问题。

这些一般法律原则在体育运动领域的应用，是执行规定的仲裁规则的保障，是国际体育领域的Lex Sportiva 的重要法源，但主要还是增强体育自治和国际体育管理系统。

5.2 如果不建立新的Lex Sportiva ，CAS的司法就缺法合法化的基础，如同lex luddiiccaa一样。但它增强了在一般法律原则实施的框架下，被称为Lex Sportiva 的“非国家联合”的法律秩序，形成了体育法原则，并适用于Lex Sportiva 及许多国际体育法领域。

5.3 案例法不会在实施一般法律原则下自然形成，它的运作离不开Lex Sportiva 法律原则的支持，这也被认为是合法的必要。

注释：

【注1】See. G. Tenekidis (1978), International Relations Sociology, p.20.

【注2】Certain principles of domestic law, are applicable in foro domestico and can be included in international law as the only alternative, if there is no international treaty or custom, See. Ε.Roukounas(1997), «International Law–1st issue» , Α. Sakoulas,Athens-Komotini, p. 225-229.

【注3】Κ. Ioannou (1975) «The application of generally accepted rules of international law in the Greek legal Order» , in: Armenopoulos,15

【注4】Plato, Laws 757e

【注5】Aristotle, Politics d 12.

【注6】Aristotle Rhitorics Α, 137a και Ethical Nikomachia, V.10,31137β

【注7】Digesta, 2, 14,7.

【注8】Diels Vors 6,15

【注9】See, Sextos Empirical, Gorgias: Concerning the existing of its nature.

【注10】See. P. Kiriakopoulos (2002), Ancient Greek Law, Modern Publishing Athens, pp. 683-698.

【注11】Hypereides, by Athenagoras, 13..

【注12】G.Tenekidis (1936) The validity of acts of domestic law objects to the international legally, Athens, pp. 138, see also Dimitrios P. Panagiotopoulos (2007), International and Olympic Sports Institutions, Nom Library: Athens, pp. 141-143.

【注13】See Roukounas E. (1997) International Law, Volume One Second Edition, pp. 225-229 A. Sacks, K. Ioannou - K.Economides - C. Rozakis - Fatouros (1988), Public International Law-theory of sources, A. Sacks ¨ Athens-Komotini, pp. 348-408,A..Verdross (1935), “Les principes généraux du droit dans la jurisprudence internationale” R.C.A.D.I. (II), B.Cheng (1959){1987} “General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals.

【注14】See case Golder 1975, which were considered "every relevant rules of international applicable law in the relations between the contracting relationships."

【注15】See. Dimitrios P. Panagiotopoulos (2011) Sports Law : Lex Sportiva &Lex Olympica, Ant. N. Sakoulas, Athens pp123-151, see also ibid (2002), "Sports Legal Order in National and International Sport Life'', 8th IASL Congress Uruguay, Modevideo Nov.28-30, 2001, in: Revista Brasileira De Direito Sportivo(Instituto Brasileiro De Direito Desportivo), no: 2, Pp. 7-17 and in:International Sports Law Review Pandektis, Vol. 4:3, pp. 227-242.

【注16】Related to the legal nature of international organizations and the process of their establishing See. Julio A. Barberis(1983), "Nouvelles questions concernant la personnalité juridique Internationale", RCADI, vol. 179, 213. For matters of international sports organization, See. P. Jacq (1988) "L Organisation Internationale du Sport", in: Sport, Droit et Relations Internationales [P. Collomb (ed.) l, EconOmica: Paris, (1-59), pp.17.

【注17】See. relevant Decision of Belgian Court, No 14295, Judges Newspaper, Belgium 30, 4. 1977. see Dimitrios P.Panagiotopoulos(2011) Sports Law Lex Sportiva & Lex Olympica, Ant.Sakkoulas:Athens pp. 202-120, also see J. Nafziger (1988),International Sports Law, Transnational publishers, inc. New York, and D. Panagiotopoulos (1991), Olympic Games Law,Ant. Sakkoulas: Athens p. 200, Also. D. Panagiotopoulos (ed.1993), The Institution of the Olympic Games: A Multidisciplinary Approach, Telethrion: Athens, pp.311-317.

【注18】See. relevant Decision of Belgian Court, No 14295, Judges Newspaper, Belgium 30, 4. 1977. see Dimitrios P.Panagiotopoulos(2011) Sports Law Lex Sportiva & Lex Olympica, Ant.Sakkoulas:Athens pp. 202-120, also see J. Nafziger (1988),International Sports Law, Transnational publishers, inc. New York, and D. Panagiotopoulos (1991), Olympic Games Law,Ant. Sakkoulas: Athens p. 200, Also. D. Panagiotopoulos (ed.1993), The Institution of the Olympic Games: A Multidisciplinary Approach, Telethrion: Athens, pp.311-317.

【注19】See. Christopher C, Joyner-Oscar Schlachter (1995),"The United Nations Legal Order", ASIL, vol. 1, p. 56 επ. και Francesco Capotorti (1994), "Course general de droit international public", RCADIIV, p. Ill,see also. for Lex sportiva and trditional law,Dimitrios Panagiotopoulos (2011), Lex Sportiva […] pp. 143-148..

【注20】See. Gerald Simon, "Le con fl it sportif un con fl it de normes?"in Droitet Sport, PiermarcoZen-Ruf fi nen(ed), Staemp fl i editions SA: Berne, pp.103-105.

【注21】For the process of solving arbitrational disputes see P. Dedes,A. Zanklis (2006), The Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne,Nomiki Library: Athens, pp. 25-46.

【注22】Recently, the same national courts have supported their ability to decide on the validity of the decisions of federations related to athletes, both in domestic and international issues, See. A. Pina(2005), op. cit., 9-10, alsoι T. Theochari (1999), as above, p. 108.

【注23】See. article 63 par. 6 FIFA statutes as it amended in Buenos Aires 7-7-2001.

【注24】The Football Referees Court will operate under the auspices of the International Court of Football Arbitration, funding for which will be the responsibility of the FIFA Executive Committee,See. article 63 FIFA. also, Τ.Μ.ASSER Institute (2001), "FIFA Establishes Independent Football Arbitration Tribunal", in: The International Sports law Journal, Issue 1, pp.31-32.

【注25】See. Christopher Vedder (2005) "The IAAF heritage [...], op.cit., p. 17.

【注26】J A.R. Nafziger (2004), "Lex Sportiva", in International Sports Law Journal, 4:1/2, pp. 3-4.

【注27】See. Μ. Reeb “Digest of CAS Awards 1986-1998” Editions Staemp fl i SA- Berne, ibid, “Digest of CAS Awards II - 1998-2000” Kluwer Law International, “Digest of CAS Awards III-2001-2003” Kluwer Law International Staemp fl i Publishers Ltd.Berne, Sweet & Maxwell’s International Sports Law Review,March 2001 – Issue I - 3 also. See. ΔΔΑ: www.tas-cas.org.

【注28】See. above K. Ioannou (1975) «The application of generally accepted rules of international law in the Greek legal system» , G.Tenekidis (1978), International Relations Sociology.

【注29】See the case: AEK Athens & SK Slavia Prague/ Union of European Football Associations (UEFA)- 1999 , CAS 98/200,in: Reeb “Digest of CAS Awards II-1998-2000” op. Cit , p. 102-103. The Decision lays down the right to be heard - a principle of procedural fairness, in accordance with Community law (thoughts 155-157), also. CAS 96/157 FIN/FINA - 1997, OG 96/006 M. v.AIBA.

【注30】CAS 98/200 (AEK Athens & SK Slavia Prague/ Union of European Football Associations (UEFA)- 1999 , σε: Reeb “Digest of CAS Awards II-1998-2000” op. Cit , The Decision lays down the right to be heard - a principle of procedural fairness,in accordance with Community law (thoughts 155-157 σελ. 102-103), όπως και CAS 96/157 FIN/FINA - 1997, OG 96/006 M. v.AIBA.

【注31】For the special nature of this autonomous legal order, See.Dimitrios Panagiotopoulos (2011) Sports Law Lex Sportiva& Lex Olympica , Ant Sakkoulas :Athens, pp.71-87, also Pampoukis (1996), Lex mercatoria, Sakkoulas, p. 17, also see.Ch. Pampoukis (2007), «Lex Sportiva: meaning and function of a native international legal order», in LEX SPORTIVA (ΕΚΕΑΔ journal), Vol. 6, p.3.

【注32】For this view of the sports emerging legal order, solely on the basis of the jurisprudence of CAS, See. J. Nafziger (1988)“International Sports Law” 2nd edition - Transnational Publishers Inc N. York (p. 57-61), Reeb “Digest of CAS Awards II-1998-2000” Kluwer Law International p. xxx, McLaren (2001)“Introducing the Court of Arbitration for Sport: The Ad Hoc Division at the Olympic Games”12 MARQ. SPORTS L. REV.515.

【注33】Dimitrios P. Panagiotopoulos, Wang Xiaoping (2013),SPORTS LAW: Structures, Practice, Justice - Sports Science and Studies,EKEAD:Athens, pp, 29-30, see also, Dimitrios P.Panagiotopoulos (2009), “Sports Law Foundation: Lex Sportiva,a Fundamental Institutional Approach”, in: Sports Law: an Emerging Legal Order - Human Rights of Athletes, Nomiki Vivliothiki: Athens, pp. 20-22 and in: International Sports law Review Pandektis, Vol.8, Issues 1-2, pp 6-14, ibid see also (2008),“Lex Sportiva and sporting jurisdictional order”, in: In-ternational Sports law Review Pandektis, Vol. 8:3-4, pp. 335-373.

【注34】See. CAS 98/200, op. Cit (thought 158 p. 103 ) and CAS OG 96/001 US Swimming v. FINA - 1996, 96/153 W. v. ACF.

【注35】See. CAS 2002/O/410 {The Gibraltar Football Association(GFA)/ Union des Associations Europeennes de Football (UEFA)-2003}, and 98/200 (ΑΕΚ Athens και Slabia Prague against UEFA

【注36】Endorsed ICA 88/15, Aug. 311988 Respect the right of a prior hearing, in: Dimitrios Panagiotopoulos (2006) .Sports Law Ι,Sports Jurisdiction, Nomiki Bibliothiki: Athens p. 311, also CAS(Ο.Α. Ad hoc Atlanta 1996) 005)1-8-1996 participants Exclusion from the Olympics, the right for a hearing., ibid p.337. See also.Greek Juridical system. sub. 1, article 101.

【注37】CAS 2005/A/895 {Barbara Lisarague & Federation Francaise d’ Equitation & Emirates International Endurance Racing, the Organizing Committee of the FEI Endurance World Championship 2005 / FEI & HH Sheikh Hazza Bin Sultan Bin Zayed Al Nahyan - 2006}: horse doping – Litigating ability - legitimate interest: thoughts 92 -93 p. 23 and 2000/A/281 {H. / Federation Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM) - 2000}: thought 8 p. 415 and 99/A/253 {T./ FEI - 2000}: horse ridding – horses mistreated- procedural fl aws in fi rst instance discussion (thoughts 9 p. 525-526): «… changing the chairman, who took place in this case during the hearing of the disciplinary proceedings before the judicial committee of FEI, is such so as to invalidate the process in its essence that has been selected, since the president who attended had not involvement after the decision, while his active participation did direct the course of the process and probably influenced the decision... Furthermore, the denial of the FEI judicial Committee to accept suggestions for additional expert evidence, consists a violation of the applicant's right to defend himself and so, he was unable to " exploit " all legal means, which was available under this general principle of law..».

【注38】CAS 87/10 ( 15-7-1989), Principle of good faith, in: Βλ. Μ.Reeb “Digest of CAS Awards 1986-1998”...op. Cit, p. 3, also.,CAS 96/161, International Triathlon Union (ITU)/ Paci fi c Sports Corp. Inc.- 1999.

【注39】CAS, case 90/44 , Sept. 241991 Principle of equality and of non-discrimination of federation members. Dimitrios Panagiotopoulos (2006) Sports Law ΙΙ,... op.Cit, p.299.

【注40】See. Violation of good faith , CAS 96/153, Watt / Cycling Association of Australia (ACF) and Tyler-Sharman, adjudication of 22 of July 1996, in. Μ. Reeb “Digest of CAS Awards 1986-1998”...op. Cit, p.335.

【注41】CAS 96/161 {International Triathlon Union (ITU)/ Paci fi c Sports Corp. Inc.- 1999: «An individual is not responsible for the company's liabilities, except for exceptional cases in accordance with the principle of «piercing the corporate veil», resulting from No. 2 Swiss Law… Given the Swiss law and the jurisprudence of the Court of the same, which has been widely accepted that principle ... According to the principle of good faith, this means that the shareholder must have improperly used the company for infringement of the law in the following ways: malicious behavior,to show intent to avoid its contractual obligations, to be mixed with the assets of the company and its shareholders, by capitalization,or enter into business actions without the professional official formalities» and CAS 2001/O/319 , X. Sarl/ Federation Y.– 2001.

【注42】CAS 98/200, 2002/O/401 speaks for the principle of “venire contra factum proprium”, according to which, when the behavior of a party has led to legitimate expectations by the second part, the fi rst part is prevented from changing its course of actions at the expense of the second part. But also in 2002/006 {NZOC / Salt Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC) – 2002}, for the exception of two athletes from participating in the Olympic Games of Salt Lake,CAS ad hoc applied as «general principle of law» the «principle of estoppel», which arises when a party entirely relied and believed in the current statements of the other, that build up con fi dence and later it confronted to other party's claims that opposed to its previous behavior (justi fi ed belief).

【注43】specifically for this interpretation See. CAS 2007/A/1358 FC Pyunik Yerevan v/C., AFC Rapid Bucaresti and FIFA, thought 104-105, TAS 2005/A/902 Mexès and AS Roma c/ AJ Auxerre,TAS 2005/A/903 AJ Auxerre c./Mexès and AS Roma, thoughts 122-141)

【注44】CAS 2005/A/902 & 903, no. 122, CAS 2007/A/1298. 1299& 1300 no.120 as well as CAS 2007/A/1358, FC Pyunik Yerevan v/ Carl Lombe, AFC Rapid Bucaresti & FIFA, N 104 – 105;2007/A/1359, FC Pyunik Yerevan v/ Edel Apoula Eldima Bete,AFC Rapid Bucaresti & FIFA, N 107 – 108 ; CAS 2008/A/1568,Tomas Mica & football Club Wil 1900 v/IA & Club PC Naftex AC Bourgas, N 6.46 & 6.47 .

【注45】CAS 2008/A/1519 FC Shakhtar Donetsk (Ukraine) v/ Mr.Matuzalem Francelino de Silva (Brazil) & Real Zaragoza SAD(Spain) & FIFA, CAS 2008/A/1520 Mr. Matuzalem Francelino de Silva (Brazil) & Real Zaragoza SAD (Spain) v/ FC Shakhtar Donetsk (Ukraine)& FIFA, Contract of a professional football player. Article 17 of FIFA regulation. Athlete's right for pre-FIFA,premature and without due cause unilateral breach of contract by the player. Team's right for compensation. Height of compensation.Responsibility of the new team, in: Sports Law Review, Lex Sportiva, Vol. 9 (2013), pp. 137-148.

【注46】See. CAS 2007/A/1298, 1299 & 1300, no 131.

【注47】See. CAS 91/45 , March 31, 1992, Contributory athlete's negligence, in. Μ. Reeb, Digest of CAS Awards 1986-1998...op.Cit, p19.

【注48】FIFA had not had the same opinion when stated that CAS did not correctly interpreted Article 17 concerning the «specificity of sports», See. Media Release, Thursday 31 January 2008, that also expressed the fear that CAS decision will be devastating for the professional football system, since it is going to have as a consequence the inability of economically disadvantaged groups in order to keep their players.

【注49】See. CAS 2007/A/1298, 1299 & 1230. The Award in this CAS appeal was handed down on 30 January, 2008. Judgment on article 17 των FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,transfer to another team before the end of «protection period»with 2 or 3 years durability, expiry of his contractual commitment.This judgment gives the option to the athletes, for new employer at a much lower cost and restricts the team ability to bind them if they wish to leave. For more, See. Dimitrios P. Panagiotopoulos(2011), “Lex Sportiva and International Legitimacy Governing:Protection of Professional Players”, US-China Law Review, Vol.8:87, pp 122-136.

【注50】CAS 2000/A/281, H. / Federation Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM) – 2000, thought 45, p. 422, CAS 91/53,95/141, 92/73, 96/156 and 95/141, 92/73, 96/156.

【注51】CAS 99/A/246 (W./ FEI- 2000), 95/141, 91/56, 92/63, 93/109,95/141, 96/157, 98/204 Also See. FIFA Disciplinary Committee,Tchipev v Makedonikos, thought 10, Concerning the points that will be removed, it is being imposed article 64 par. 3, according to which, the number of removable points must be proportional to the ammount in debt, in: Sports Law Review Lex Sportiva, Vol. 9(2013), p. 153.

【注52】The criteria for the implementation of the measures are set out in the decision of the case: McLain Ward v/ FEI (1999/A/246),which is registered in the decision of 2/A/430 Bliamou case v/FINA, also in Foschi case v/ FINA CAS 1996/56, in: Dimitrios Panagiotopoulos (2006) Sports Law ΙΙ,... op.Cit, pp.273-274, also Dimitrios P. Panagiotopoulos (2004), "International Sports Rules'Implementation – Decisions Executability", in: Marquette Sports Law Review, Vol. 5:1, pp.1-12 and Comment in ISLR/Pand., Vol.5:4, pp.304-307 and Fair Trial,16:6, pp. 1401-1415.

【注53】CAS 2001/A/357 , Nabokov & Russian Olympic Committee(ROC) & Russian Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF)- 2002, Ice Hockey– Ability to participate in the National team – interpreting statutes- citizenship and athletic citizenship in thoughts 25-26 p. 510 that«The fact that an athlete, without the knowledge of the federation,managed in the past to break the rules, does not mean that by this illegal action, other players can fi nd bene fi t, and nor to accept the allegation of unequal treatment, since the action of those athletes did not even dealt» also decision. 96/149, 2001/Α/317.

【注54】According to Belgian Law, article 187(2), that concerns International private Law, becoming from the article 31 (3) of Concordat intercantonal sur l’arbitrage (that was regulating the internal arbitration according to the previous state).

【注55】See article 1872, Swiss International Privet Law Act December 18, 1987.

【注56】See. Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1374 d, 19 as. " Και το εις δίαιταν μάλλον ή εις δίκην βούλεσθαι ιέναι. ο γαρ διαιτητής το επιεικές ορά ο δε δικαστής τον νόμον. και τούτου ένεκα διαιτητής ευρέθη,όπως το επιεικές ισχύει", Also see. Aristotle in his work Athenian Constitution 53: «Διαιτητές δ’ εισίν οις αν εξηκοστόν έτος ή ...».For more See. D. Panagiotopoulos (1991), Olympic Games Law,Ant. Ν. Sakkoulas: Athens pp. 51-55.

【注57】See. Basketball Arbitral Tribunal – BAT, ΒAT 0056/2009,Branzova vs BC Nadezhda, Ex aequo et bono. Withdrawal from the contract. Criteria for this right recognition, in: Sports Law Review Lex Sportiva, Vol. 9 (2013), pp. 134-135., Also Redfern and Hunter Law and practice of International Commercial Arbitration, Sweet & Maxwell third edition (1999),p.2-72.

【注58】ΒAT has its headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland and is subject to Swiss law. Also: http://www. fi ba.com/pages/eng/fc/expe/fat/p/open%ADNodeIDs/16809/selNodeID/16809/pres.html

【注59】See. Swiss Law, article. 28 CL, and article 16 par. 9 Greek Constitution. Also. CAS 95/142, L./ International Amateur Swimming Federation (FINA), Judgment in February 14th,1996 Claiming compensation for breaching the contract and personality violation, in. Μ. Reeb “Digest of CAS Awards 1986-1998”...op.Cit, p. 225.

【注60】See., Swiss C.L. article 28

【注61】See. CAS 98/200 ,thoughts 25-27 and M Reeb, as above,p.52 .

【注62】See CAS 95/141 op.Cit , CAS 95/150 (28-6-1996) , See also for this issue Christopher Vender (2005) "The IAAF heritage Two Decades of Arbitration in Doping Related Disputes", in:International Sports law Journal, 2005: 3/4, pp.17-18,

【注63】Ibid CAS 98/200, considerations 22-54 pp. 51-63.

【注64】The Greek conception of fair "εύ", was forming the basis of Greek enlightenment in the fi fth century bc. Gorgias, showw the world taking particular characteristics in idealizational orbit between is (exists) and its opposite "Κόσμος πόλει μεν ευανδρία,σώματι δε κάλλος, ψυχή δε σοφία, πράγματι δε αρετή, λόγω δε αλήθεια ΄ τα δε εναντία τούτων ακοσμία [...]". Fair, is being put in the center of the philosophical quest concerning the world due to the fact that the bravery of past ages is not enough, the meaning in the world of the city is being given with 'fairmanship' "ευανδρία",the simple fi ght cannot mark the meaning of the world but only the good fi ght, not even the simple life, but the prosperous life,See. Gorgias in Γοργία, Helen's Praise, 1. Trial and pudency is the pedestal of cities, "[...] Αιδώ τε και δίκην ιν ειεν κόσμοι πόλεων κόσμοι τε και δεσμοί φιλίας συναγωγοί", Plato, Protagoras 13-15.Thucydides con fi rms this view when he says in his epitaph "[...] το εύδαιμον, το ελεύθερον, το δε ελεύθερον το εύψυχον[...]", when Plato promises a ful fi lling and prosperous life. The considerations above are included in the work, announced by the author in the world congress of philosophy at the University of Athens May 19-21, 2002 titled "Κόσμος, Παν - Κόσμον, Παγκοσμιον".

【注65】See. D. Panagiotopoulos (1999), "Sports Law - Special fi eld", in: Sports Law in 21st Century (1st Greek Sports Law Congress proceedings, Trikala 1999), Ιων: Athens, pp. 42-43,more in the book (2001), Sports Law Systematic Foundation and Implementation, Ant. N. Sakkoulas: Athens, pp. 72-74, also in:"Sports legal order in national and international sporting life", in:Proceedings 8th Congress of International Association of Sports Law, November 28-30, 2001, Mondevideo / Uruguay, and Sports Law a European Dimension, Ant. N. Sakkoulas: Athens, pp,15-27,also. M. Stathopoulos (1998), Sports and European Community Law , In: Proceedings 5th IASL Congress, Nafplion 10-12 July 1997, pp. 23-24, This consideration, Lex Sportiva in relation to Lex Mercatoria, adopted by A. Caiger και S. Gardiner (2000), in their work titled: Professional Sport in the EU: Regulation and Reregulation, Kluwer Law International: Hague, pp. 301-302. Lately,J.A Nafziger (2004), "Lex Sportiva", in: International Sports Law Journal (ISLJ), 1:2, pp.3-8 referring mainly to this.

【注66】So, the prevailing view of the jurisprudence concerning the German Federal Constitutional Court's about the limits of private autonomy: «Since one of the two counterparties have so much bargaining power, so it can set unilaterally the contractual rules,it is a foreign will af fi liation for the other party. Where lacking the power balance of the parties, the means of contract law are not enough to ensure a fair balance of all parties interests. In such cases, if one party holds such a position of power , state laws must intervene balancing and ensuring the adequate protection of individual rights.»,See. BVerfG, Decision No. 1 BvR 26/84 from 07-02-1990, in: BVerfGE 81, p. 242 (254) and in: NJW 1990, p.1469.

【注67】See. This view is mainly supported by article 307 of the German C.L. according to which: «General terms and conditions are powerless when incurring the other party, in contrast to the requirement of good faith», See also. Greek C.L. in article 281.

【注68】CAS case 92/80, March 25, 1993, Double basketball athlete's nationality - Solid sporting nationality, in: Dimitrios Panagiotopoulos (2006) Sports Law ΙΙ ,op.Cit, p. 305.

【注69】Rules 31 par. 3, 32 par. 1 sub.par. Β, 51 Olympic Charter, also in article 19 par. 2 Law Νo. 2725/1999, as it has modi fi ed by the Laws No.3479/2006, 3372/2005, 3262/2004, 3057/2002.

【注70】See Rules 46 par. 1, 34 and 31 par.3 Olympic Charter.Dimitrios Panagiotopoulos (2005), " Amateur and professional specialty of the athletes and their participation in the Olympic Games ", in: Law and Olympic Games, International Conference of the Law School of Athens University Proceedings [Ν. Klamaris et.all (ed.)], Ant. Ν. Sakoulas: Athens, p. 230-231.

【注71】CAS 92/80 {B./ International Basketball Federation (FIBA)-1993}, and 98/209 {Spanish Basketball Federation (FEB)/ FIBA},94/123 {FIBA/ W. & Brandt Hagen e.V- 1994}.

【注72】CAS 96/005 {A., W., L. / NOC Cape Verde (NOC CV) - 1996}.

【注73】FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, FIFA DRC, Tchipev v Kallithea, concerning a player's transfer out of the transfer period.Unilateral contract termination. Non-payment of the accrued wages in: Sports Law Review Lex Sportiva, Vol. 9 (2013),consideration 18, p. 151.

【注74】This evidence are valid under the Swiss law. The CAS judge"referee" relies primarily on "direct evidence" giving the chance to the defendant party to be able to demonstrate the opposite, or at least to create doubt concerning the truth of such events, See.CAS 96/159 & 96/166 , A., C., F. and K./ International Equestrian Federation (FEI) – 1998,: horse riding – horse mistreatment –reverse proof in consideration 16, p. 454, 2003/O/482, Ariel Ortega/ Fenerbahce & FIFA, concerning football- breach of agreement: Regarding the unilateral termination of a contract and the existence of "justi fi able reason" (“just cause”) or "exceptional circumstances". In decision 2005/A/884 , Tyler Hamilton /USADA & UCI – 2006, consideration 70 pp. 22-23, concerning doping - World anti doping Code of WADA – burden of proof,according to which «there was no concealment of documents so as to create doubts about the reliability of the test», so the decision 2002/A/388, Ulker Sport/ Euroleague- 2002, in considerations 5-6 p. 519 .

【注75】CAS 98/214 {B. / Federation Internationale de Judo(FIJ) - 1999} and 95/141, 92/63 and 97/175 {Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) / A. - 1998}, 91/56, 92/73 and Swiss fed.Court decision 83/1999.

【注76】CAS 94/126 {N. / FEI - 1998}.

【注77】CAS 98/214 {B. / Federation Internationale de Judo (FIJ) -1999} and Swiss Federal Tribunal 5P. 83/1999 (N., J., Y., W. /FINA – 31.3.1999).

【注78】The fact that that this rule has been introduced in the World Anti-Doping Code is Of crucial importance (Article 2.1.1), while remarkable is the case of CAS: 2000/001 {USOC, USA Canoe-Kayak / IOC - 2000}, 2000/011 {Andreea Raducan / IOC - 2000}:doping – principle of «absolute responsibility», 2006/OG/001{WADA / USADA, USBSF & FIBT}: doping – burden of proof– unregistered prohibited substance: «…As many panels of CAS have decided but also the WADA Code… It is a personal duty of every athlete to ensure that no prohibited substance has inserted into his/her body. In addition, every athlete is responsible for every prohibited substance found in samples taken from his body.»(consideration 4.13),

【注79】See. CAS 96/149 ( 13-31997) Doping from water polo player(salbutamol) Special state concerning salbutamol in IOC rules,Athlete's good faith in his failing to declare its use, in Μ. Reeb“Digest of CAS Awards 1986-1998”...op. Cit, p.251.

【注80】CAS 95/122 ( 5- 30-1996) Principle of strict liability, national basketball team exclusion from the Paralympic Games, in. Μ.Reeb “Digest of CAS Awards 1986-1998”...op. Cit, p.173.

【注81】CAS case 92/63, 15 Oct. 1992 and Case 92/86, April 19, 1993,Reversing the burden of proof - Counterevidence ability discharge for accusations exemption, in: Dimitrios Panagiotopoulos (2006)Sports Law ΙΙ ,..op.Cit, p.303-304. Also CAS 95/141, ( 22-4-1996),Use of prohibited substances by a swimmer (etilefrine). Two years exclusion. Strict liability, potential counterevidence, consideration of circumstances as mitigate, in Μ. Reeb “Digest of CAS Awards 1986-1998”...op. Cit, p. 205.

【注82】CAS 91/56 {S. / FEI-1992}

【注83】CAS 92/63 {G. / FEI- 1992}: horse doping – legal presumption- opportunity in rebuttal, 92/71 {SJ. / FEI - 1992}: horse doping– riders intentions – rider's obligation to exercise due diligence:(consideration 19 p. 143) «the fact that the person knows that banned substances are being administered and did not receive all the necessary measures before the race, is at least such negligence to be compared with a deliberate and premeditated act to modify horse's performance and/or left to hide its health problem.», 92/73{N. / FEI - 1992}: horse doping – rider's negligence – obligation to inform for the medical treatment of the horse, 92/86 {W. / FEI- 1992}: horse doping, 98/184 {P. / FEI - 1998}: horse riding -obligation to inform for the medical treatment of the horse.

【注84】CAS 95/142 and 94/129.

【注85】CAS 96/157 , Federazione Italiana Nuoto (FIN)/ Fe’de’ration Internationale de Natation Amateur (FINA)- 1997}, consideration 22 p. 359, concerning disciplinary offense - absence of individual penalties. «…The decision-making body of the federation is the one that is in the position to decide which rules and which sanctions are fair and proportionate under the light of the facts that constitute the violation», See 2002/002 , COA / FIS - 2002.