Scholarlink

<p>Under Rule 57 of the CAS Code, most appeals in the Court of Arbitration for Sports (“CAS”) are heard <i>de novo</i>, i.e. CAS tries the case anew and reaches its own decision irrespective of the findings by the first instance which is normally an arbitral body in an international sports federation. In practice, many panels go one step further: they assume that any procedural mistakes made by a sports federation do not matter for the current trial in CAS because the full rehearing at CAS supposedly fixes them.</p><p>This article tests that assumption. Based on the Code, commentary and a focused look at published awards that cite <i>de novo</i>, it demonstrates that panels ignore procedural irregularities even though some or most of them cannot in fact be undone on CAS appeal.</p><p>To reflect that finding the article clarifies the scope of the de novo review, explains why the so-called “curing effect” is not supported by the text of the Code, and sets out what is lost when CAS ignores procedural errors. It finally reaches the conclusion that panels should address procedural violations and Rule 57 should be amended in a manner addressing this expressly.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The curing effect of CAS appellate proceedings: a part and parcel of the de novo principle or an extraneous component?

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月6日

查看全文
  • Igor Voskoboynik

摘要

Under Rule 57 of the CAS Code, most appeals in the Court of Arbitration for Sports (“CAS”) are heard de novo, i.e. CAS tries the case anew and reaches its own decision irrespective of the findings by the first instance which is normally an arbitral body in an international sports federation. In practice, many panels go one step further: they assume that any procedural mistakes made by a sports federation do not matter for the current trial in CAS because the full rehearing at CAS supposedly fixes them.

This article tests that assumption. Based on the Code, commentary and a focused look at published awards that cite de novo, it demonstrates that panels ignore procedural irregularities even though some or most of them cannot in fact be undone on CAS appeal.

To reflect that finding the article clarifies the scope of the de novo review, explains why the so-called “curing effect” is not supported by the text of the Code, and sets out what is lost when CAS ignores procedural errors. It finally reaches the conclusion that panels should address procedural violations and Rule 57 should be amended in a manner addressing this expressly.