CAS ad hoc Division (OG London) 12/005 Jan Sterba v. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)
Related case:
CAS OG_2012_07 International Canoe Federation vs Jan Sterba
August 6, 2012
Canoe
Request to confirm the decision appealed
Standing to appeal
When coming to decide the issue of the standing to appeal, the constant CAS’ jurisprudence establish very clearly that only an aggrieved party, having something at stake and thus a concrete interest in challenging a decision adopted by a sports body, may appeal to CAS against that decision. This reflects the principle of the “Aggrievement Requirement” established in CAS case law and embodied in the CAS Ad hoc Rules. In this respect, when the only requested relief is to confirm a legal valid decision totally in the applicant’s favor, the latter has no legal interest. He is therefore not an aggrieved party and does not have standing to appeal.
On 9 July 2012 the International Canoe Federation Doping Control Panel (ICFDCP) decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Czech Athlete Jan Sterba after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance β-methylethylamine.
The Athlete appealed the decision of 9 July 2012 and on 24 July 2012 the International Canoe Federation Court of Arbitration (ICFCA) decided to set aside the ICFDCP decision and ruled that no anti-doping rule violation has been committed by the Athlete.
Hereafter the Athlete filed an application with the CAS ad hoc Division at the London Olympic Games againt the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) with the ICF, the COC and IOC as interested parties.
The Athlete requested the Panel to confirm the ICFDCP decision of 24 July 2012 in full with no more delay so that he can be sure to compete in the London Olympic Games.
The Panel finds that in the present case the Athlete did not submit an application against a decision but actually requested the confirmation of a decision and as he himself, in his own words wrote “the Athlete fully agrees with appealed decision”. Therefore it is clear and obvious that the Athlete has no concrete legal interest in challenging the decision. In such circumstances the Athlete is not an affected party in the sense of this principal due to the fact that he is not an aggrieved party. It follows that the Athlete does not have standing to appeal in this case.
In light of the above conclusion, the Panel finds that there is no need to address the second question regarding the standing to be sued of WADA. However the Panel finds it important to note that this fact by itself i.e. that the only WADA is a party that was not a party in the previous proceedings and was not a party to the Appealed decision, could be sufficient, by itself, to deny the Application.
The ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 July 2012:
1.) Based on the Appealed Decision and the submissions of the parties, the Panel finds that there is presently no case or controversy preventing the Athlete from participating in the XXX Olympic Games. Therefore, the Applicant has no legal interest and standing to appeal against the decision issued on 24 July 2012 by the International Canoe Federation Court of Arbitration.
2.) The Application of Mr. Jan Sterba submitted on 28 July 2012 is denied.
