Introduction
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) occupies a central position in the global sports dispute resolution framework. As the final appellate body for most international sporting disputes, CAS has been instrumental in shaping how disciplinary proceedings in sport align with the principles of natural justice. While sports governing bodies retain significant regulatory autonomy, CAS jurisprudence consistently affirms that such autonomy is constrained by fundamental procedural fairness.
This article critically examines how CAS has interpreted, applied, and enforced the principles of natural justice in sports disciplinary proceedings, highlighting key cases and doctrinal developments.
The Role of CAS in Sports Disciplinary Frameworks
CAS functions as a quasi-judicial body providing independent and specialised arbitration for sports-related disputes. Its jurisdiction typically arises from arbitration clauses embedded in the statutes and regulations of international federations such as FIFA, WADA, UEFA, and the IOC.
CAS does not merely review the legality of disciplinary decisions but often conducts a de novo review, reassessing both facts and law. This expansive scope gives CAS a unique role in safeguarding procedural fairness across diverse sporting regimes.
Natural Justice in CAS Jurisprudence
CAS recognises natural justice as an integral component of lex sportiva, a transnational body of sports law principles developed through arbitral awards.
1. Right to Be Heard (Audi Alteram Partem)
The right to be heard is one of the most consistently enforced principles in CAS jurisprudence. CAS has clarified that this right includes:
- Adequate notice of charges
- Access to evidence
- Reasonable opportunity to present a defence
- The right to challenge opposing evidence
In CAS 94/129 Quigley v UIT, CAS held that even in expedited sporting proceedings, athletes must be afforded minimum procedural guarantees. The panel emphasised that efficiency cannot override fairness, particularly where sanctions affect an athlete’s career and reputation.
Similarly, in CAS 2011/A/2384 & 2386 FC Sion v UEFA, CAS scrutinised whether the club had been given a genuine opportunity to present its case, reinforcing that procedural fairness applies irrespective of the commercial or competitive pressures facing governing bodies.
2. Impartiality and Independence of Decision-Makers (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua)
CAS has repeatedly addressed concerns arising from the structural concentration of power within sports governing bodies, where investigative, prosecutorial, and adjudicative functions may overlap.
In CAS 2006/A/1025 Puerta v ITF, while acknowledging the regulatory framework of the ITF, CAS stressed the importance of institutional safeguards to ensure impartiality. The availability of an independent appeal before CAS was considered a critical corrective mechanism against potential bias at the federation level.
CAS panels have generally accepted internal disciplinary structures provided that:
- Decision-makers are sufficiently independent
- Conflicts of interest are disclosed
- CAS review remains available
This approach reflects CAS’s pragmatic balancing of sporting autonomy with procedural integrity.
3. Reasoned Decisions and Transparency
CAS has elevated the requirement of reasoned decisions as an essential element of natural justice. Disciplinary bodies must clearly articulate:
- The factual findings
- The applicable rules
- The rationale for sanctions imposed
In CAS 2010/A/2283 WADA v IAAF & Pistorius, CAS underlined that transparency in reasoning is necessary to enable meaningful appellate review and to maintain confidence in disciplinary systems.
Unreasoned or inadequately reasoned decisions risk being set aside, particularly where they impede the athlete’s ability to appeal effectively.
Proportionality and Sanctions in CAS Review
CAS has developed a robust doctrine of proportionality, especially in disciplinary and anti-doping cases. While recognising strict liability regimes, CAS has consistently examined whether sanctions are:
- Appropriate to the gravity of the offence
- Consistent with precedent
- Compatible with the principle of fairness
In CAS 2008/A/1489 Matuzalém v FIFA, CAS reduced an excessively punitive sanction, holding that disciplinary measures must not be oppressive or disproportionate, particularly where they affect an athlete’s right to work.
Similarly, CAS panels routinely adjust sanctions where mitigating factors are inadequately considered, reinforcing that disciplinary discretion is not unfettered.
Strict Liability and Natural Justice: A CAS Perspective
Strict liability, particularly in doping cases, presents a direct challenge to traditional notions of fault and fairness. CAS has upheld strict liability as necessary for the integrity of sport but has softened its impact through:
- Flexibility in sanction reduction
- Recognition of “no significant fault or negligence”
- Contextual evaluation of athlete conduct
In CAS 2000/A/317 Aanes v FIS, CAS clarified that strict liability does not negate procedural fairness; athletes must still receive a full and fair hearing.
CAS as the Guardian of Procedural Fairness in Sport
CAS’s jurisprudence demonstrates a consistent effort to harmonise sporting discipline with legal principles without undermining the unique needs of sport. National courts, particularly in Switzerland and the UK, have largely endorsed CAS’s approach, intervening only where there is a breach of public policy or fundamental procedural rights.
The Swiss Federal Tribunal has repeatedly upheld CAS awards, recognising natural justice as embedded within CAS arbitration procedures.
Conclusion
CAS has emerged as the principal architect of procedural fairness in international sports disciplinary proceedings. Through its evolving jurisprudence, CAS has ensured that principles of natural justice such as the right to be heard, impartial adjudication, reasoned decision-making, and proportionality are firmly embedded within the global sports regulatory framework.
While sport may require flexibility and efficiency, CAS has made it clear that disciplinary autonomy cannot exist at the expense of fairness. In doing so, CAS has reinforced the legitimacy of sports governance and ensured that disciplinary proceedings, though private in nature, remain anchored to fundamental legal principles.
EK 