Related case:
CAS 2009/A/1817 & CAS 2009/A/1844 WADA & FIFA vs Cyprus Football Association (CFA), Carlos Marques, Leonel Medeiros, Angelos Efthymiou, Yiannis Sfakianakis, Dmytro Mykhailenko, Samir Bengeloun, Bernardo Vasconcelos & Edward Eranosian
October 26, 2010
In November 2008 the Cyprus Football Association (CFA) has reported two separate anti-doping rule violations against two football players of the Cyprian APOP Kinyras football team after their A and B samples, provided in October and November 2008, tested positive for the prohibited substance oxymesterone.
After an investigation the CFA Judicial Committee decided on 2 April 2009 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the two Cyprian football players.
The CFA investigation showed that the Bulgarian football trainer Mr. Edward Eranosian of APOP Kinyras provided the pills to the football players. Due to his substantial assistance in the investigation a 2 year period of ineligibility was imposed on him instead of a 4 year period.
WADA appealed the CFA decision of 2 April 2009 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
On 26 October 2010, the CAS Panel decided to uphold the WADA appeal and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the trainer Mr. Edward Eranosian (CAS 2009/A/1817 & CAS 2009/A/1844) .
Hereafter the Mr. Eranosian appealed the CAS decision of 26 October 2010 to the Swiss Federal Court.
The Swiss Federal Court decides to reject the appeal on 18 April 2011 to the extent that matter is capable of appeal.
The Swiss Federal Court’s opinion in this case:
The issue was that, as a professional trainer registered with the Cyprus Football Association, the trainer had undertaken to comply with the anti-doping provisions of the Cyprus Football Association as well as with the FIFA Statutes because the Cyprus federation statutes contained an undertaking to ensure that the members comply with FIFA regulations and statutes, which require compliance with anti-doping rules. It thus created the basis for CAS’ exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to articles 62 and 63 of the FIFA Statutes.
Despite a well-reasoned argument that the reference to the Cyprus federation statutes was merely with regard to the substantive anti-doping rules of FIFA and was not intended to create CAS jurisdiction by reference to articles 62 and 63 of the FIFA Statutes, the Court rejected it. Instead, it emphasized the importance of CAS jurisdiction, albeit by what were at times somewhat thin references, because of the importance of ensuring that doping is not tolerated.
As will be clear from the foregoing, the opinion will be of interest to readers who practice sports arbitration. The decision also shows that the Swiss Supreme Court is ready to broadly interpret CAS jurisdiction when there are public interest issues involved.
