Bundesgerichtshof KZR 6/15 Claudia Pechstein vs ISU
On 1 July 2009 the International Skating Union (ISU) imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the German Athlete Claudia Pechstein. On basis of all evidence presented in this case the ISU Disciplinary Commission ruled that the Athlete has applied the prohibited method of blood doping.
The Athlete denied the doping allegations and appealed with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. All 4 appeals were dismissed and the ban was upheld.
The Athlete started proceedings with the Geman District Court in Munich (Landgericht München I) against the ISU and the Deutsche Eisschnelllauf-Gemeinschaft (DESG).
The Court found that it had jurisdiction to hear the damages claims, and the defendants could not invoke the arbitration clauses.
However, the Court held that it could not revisit and review the legality of the ban as it was bound by the CAS findings that the ban was legal and the Athlete’s damages claims were unfounded. On 26 February 2014 the Munich District Court dismissed the Athlete’s claim but also ruled that the arbitration clause contained in the athletes’ agreement between Pechstein and both the ISU and DESG to be invalid.
In the Athlete’s new appeal against the DESG and ISU with the Higher Distict Court in Munich (Oberlandesgericht München) the Higher District Court confirmed the previous conclusion of the Landgericht München about arbitration. The Higher Court dismissed the CAS award based on Art. V (2) (b) New York Convention because it violates German cartel law, which is part of the ordre public.
Hence, no res iudicata effect of the CAS award hinders Pechstein from bringing forward claims for damages before German state courts. The Oberlandesgericht Munich ruled on 15 January 2015 that the arbitration agreement was void and the arbitral award could not be recognized.
Hereafter the Athlete appealed her claims for damages against the ISU with the German Federal District Court of Justice in Karsruhe (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH). On 7 June 2016 the BGH decided to dismiss the appeal of Claudia Pechstein considering the circumstances mentioned below:
German Federal Court of Justice, judgement of 7 June 2016 - KZR 6/15 - Higher Regional Court of Munich (OLG München)
Regional Court (Landgericht) of Munich I
Pechstein/International Skating Union:
Sec. 1025 para. 2, sec. 1032 para. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO); sec. 19, para. 1 of the Act against Restraints of Competition (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, GWB); Art. 12 of the Federal Constitution (Grundgesetz, GG); Art. 6 para. 1 of the ECHR.
Judgement:
a) The Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) in Lausanne is a court of arbitration pursuant to the definition of sections 1025 para. 2 and 1032 para. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
b) International sports federations organised according to the “one place principle” are market leaders with regards to the admission of athletes to the sports competitions organised by it.
c) It is not an abuse of the sports association’s market position if the association makes the participation of an athlete in a sporting competition dependent on the athlete signing an arbitration agreement that includes a clause naming the CAS as the court of arbitration under the anti-doping rules. The Rules of Procedure of the CAS contain sufficient guarantees safeguarding the rights of the athletes, and the arbitral awards of the CAS are subject to review by the Federal Tribunal of Switzerland (Bundesgericht).
d) The fact that the arbitrators must be chosen by the parties from a closed list drawn up by an international body consisting predominantly of representatives of the International Olympic Committee, the National Olympic Committees and the international sport federations is no indication that the Rules of Procedure of the CAS are lacking sufficient guarantees to safeguard the rights of the athletes. With regard to questions of anti-doping measures, sports federations and athletes are not, generally speaking, divided into opposing “camps” pursuing different interests.
e) Under the circumstances, the arbitration agreement is not invalid from the point of view of the right to access to state courts (Justizgewährungsanspruch) pursuant to Art. 2 para. 1 of the Federal Constitution, the fundamental freedom to pursue professional activities pursuant to Art. 12 para. 1 of the Federal Constitution, nor the right to a fair hearing pursuant to Art. 6 para. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) notes after the BGH decision that this is the confirmation that Claudia Pechstein had a fair trial, not only before the CAS but also before the SFT, and that the judgment of the SFT, which remains in force, settled this matter definitively in 2010.
This means that the German courts have no jurisdiction to revisit a final CAS decision. It is also the confirmation that the CAS arbitration clauses inserted in the regulations of sports organizations are valid (as it was already decided by the Swiss Federal Tribunal earlier).
More importantly, like the SFT did in 1993 and 2003, the GFT has emphasized that the CAS is a “genuine arbitration tribunal” in the sense of German law, and that such sports jurisdiction is necessary for the uniformity in sport. The GFT also notes that the CAS procedural rules guarantee the impartiality and independence of the parties and do not create any imbalance between athletes and sports federations.
(BGH, CAS)
BGH, Urteil vom 7. Juni 2016 - KZR 6/15 - OLG München
LG München I
Pechstein/International Skating Union:
ZPO § 1025 Abs. 2, § 1032 Abs. 1; GWB § 19 Abs. 1; GG Art. 12; EMRK Art. 6 Abs. 1
a) Der Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) in Lausanne ist ein Schiedsgericht im Sinne von § 1025 Abs. 2, § 1032 Abs. 1 ZPO.
b) Ein nach dem "Ein-Platz-Prinzip" organisierter internationaler Sportverband ist hinsichtlich der Zulas-sung der Athleten zu den von ihm organisierten Sportwettbewerben marktbeherrschend.
c) Es stellt keinen Missbrauch der Marktmacht des Sportverbands dar, wenn er die Teilnahme eines Athleten an einem Sportwettkampf von der Unterzeichnung einer Schiedsvereinbarung abhängig macht, in der gemäß den Anti-Doping-Regeln der CAS als Schiedsgericht vorgesehen ist. Die Verfah-rensordnung des CAS enthält ausreichende Garantien für die Wahrung der Rechte der Athleten, und die Schiedssprüche des CAS unterliegen einer Kontrolle durch das schweizerische Bundesgericht.
d) Der Verfahrensordnung des CAS mangelt es auch nicht deshalb an ausreichenden Garantien für die Wahrung der Rechte der Athleten, weil die Schiedsrichter von den Verfahrensbeteiligten aus einer ge-schlossenen Liste auszuwählen sind, die von einem Gremium aufgestellt wird, das mehrheitlich mit Vertretern des Internationalen Olympischen Komitees, der nationalen Olympischen Komitees und der internationalen Sportverbände besetzt ist. Sportverbände und Athleten stehen sich bei der Bekämp-fung des Dopings grundsätzlich nicht als von gegensätzlichen Interessen geleitete "Lager" gegenüber.
e) Unter diesen Umständen ist die Schiedsvereinbarung auch nicht im Hinblick auf den Justizgewäh-rungsanspruch aus Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG, das Grundrecht auf freie Berufsausübung nach Art. 12 Abs. 1 GG oder das Recht auf ein faires Verfahren nach Art. 6 Abs. 1 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonven-tion unwirksam.
