Related cases:
CAS 2008/O/1643 Vladimir Gusev vs Olympus Sarl
June 15, 2009
Swiss Federal Court 4A_352/2009
October 13, 2009
The case involved a Russian racing cyclist, Vladimir Gusev and a Belgian Company Olympus Sarl. Olympus hired Gusev for two years on November 15, 2007 and the contract was governed by Swiss law. On July 23rd, 2008, Olympus Sarl terminated the contract, alleging that a medical report seriously suggested that the cyclist had taken exogenous EPO.
The Athlete Gusev started arbitration proceedings in front of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and on 15 June 2009 the CAS Panel found for Gusev and ordered Olympus to pay damages.
Olympus Sarl appealed to the CAS decision of 15 June 2009 with the Federal Court and hereafter also sought the revision of the award.
The Swiss Federal Court rejected the appeal of Olympus Sarl (4A_352/2009) and the petition seeking revision of Olympus Sarl (4A_368/2009) on 13 October 2009.
The court’s opinion in this case:
1.) In the appeal (4A_352/2009), Olympus Sarl claimed a violation of the “right to be heard” (due process). The Federal Court recalled what it has already said many times as to the Arbitral Tribunal’s duty to ensure that each party be heard on all essential facts and enabled to present its arguments. Yet the allegedly aggrieved party must prove that the Arbitral Tribunal failed to do so and this was clearly not the case here.
2.) As to revision (4A_368/2009), the Federal Court recalled that new facts or evidence may justify revision only to the extent that they existed at the time, were unknown to the petitioner although he acted with due diligence and would have been likely to have an influence on the outcome of the proceedings. The requirements established by case law in this respect were not met in this case.
