Titlebook: CAS and Football: Landmark Cases; Alexander Wild Book 2012 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Spr

先鋒派

Evocative

Hooliganism, fine (amounting to CHF 30,000) to PSV Eindhoven because of racist incidents which had occurred during the match Eindhoven–Arsenal on September 25, 2002 (in particular, a group of supporters were screaming like monkeys in Thierry Henry’s direction). On appeal by the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector, the

施舍

Match Fixing,cedure conducted by the UEFA disciplinary bodies was concerned with whether or not FC Porto should be admitted to the UEFA Champions League for the 2008/09 season, bearing in mind the scandal and the criminal procedure known as “Apito Dourado”, in which FC Porto and its president were accused of inv

不幸的人

Player Agents,trong disagreement with the findings of this panel of the TAS, given that its Arbitration Decision contains a number of legal concepts and factual analyses which make me wonder whether the impartiality that ought to be at the heart of an arbitration existed at all, and this notwithstanding the fact

EXPEL

藝術(shù)

統(tǒng)治人類

pus840

Stay of Execution, latest CAS jurisprudence—FC Sion & Essam El Hadary v FIFA & Al-Ahly Sporting Club (CAS 2009/A/1880 & 1881) and Chelsea Football Club & Ga?l Kakuta v SASP Racing Club de Lens & Association Racing Club De Lens & FIFA (CAS 2009/A/1976 & 1977)—Stephen Sampson introduces significant principles to serve as guidelines for a stay of execution.

協(xié)迫

Stefan Brassel,Andreas Gadatschxtended to all decisions rendered by a sports federation, outside the scope of doping-related decisions. As to the merits, the author concludes that the CAS confirmed its jurisprudence on the burden of proof and the duty of care of the athlete.

兒童

Andreas Gadatsch,Hartmut Ihne,Dirk Schreiber author describes the revision of arbitration in Switzerland and the CAS arbitration rules. He analyses whether the admissibility of the revision was justified, and concludes that the Swiss Supreme Court would never have admitted a request for revision based on new evidence such as that which was submitted to the Panel.