CAS 2006_A_1183 Karol Beck vs ITF
Related case:
ITF 2006 ITF vs Karol Beck
February 13, 2006
- Tennis
- Doping (clenbuterol)
- Admissibility of the appeal to CAS
- CAS jurisdiction in absence of objection to the late filing of an appeal
1. Pursuant to Art. R32 para. 2 of the CAS Code, “upon application on justified grounds [the President of the Panel] may extend the time limit provided in [the CAS] procedural rules, with the exception of the time limit for the filing of the statement of appeal, if the circumstances so warrant”. As a consequence, an appeal filed more than eight months after the stipulated deadline must be declared inadmissible.
2. Although the time limit for an appeal cannot be “extended” stricto sensu, it must be emphasized that, in accordance with Art. R49 of the CAS Code and with the regular CAS practice, should a respondent decide voluntarily not to raise any objection to the late filing of an appeal and to consent to CAS jurisdiction in order that the dispute be resolved in the form of a final and binding award, the CAS would be entitled to proceed notwithstanding the late filing of the appeal.
In 2006 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Slovak tennis player Karol Beck after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Clenbuterol.
Consequently the ITF Anti-Doping Tribunal decided on 13 February 2006 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. In first instance the Tribunal refused the Athlete’s request to postpone the hearing in order to introduce new evidence that would assist his case.
Hereafter in December 2006 the Athlete appealed the ITF decision of 13 February 2006 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Preliminary the Panel establishes that the ITF decision was rendered on 13 February 2006 and that very likely the Athlete received the decision between 13 and 15 February 2006. Accordingly the deadline to file an appeal with CAS would have been 8 March 2006.
The Panel determines that the Athlete filed his appeal on 4 December 2006. Without grounds to extend the time-limit for appeal the Panel finds that the Athlete’s appeal more than 8 months after the stipulated deadline must be declared inadmissible.
However the Panel notes that despite the fact that the appeal was not admissible, the Panel is troubled by the fact that the ITF Anti-Doping Tribunal, in its decision of 13 February 2006, was apparently prepared to give the Athlete an opportunity to produce new evidence in support of a possible appeal directly to CAS.
In reliance upon the indication from the ITF Anti-Doping Tribunal, the Athlete tried in good faith to obtain such evidence and to submit it to the CAS. The Panel deems that the ITF Anti-Doping Tribunal procedure in this matter is confusing and without any guarantee that any new evidence could be considered at all in the end by any tribunal.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport on 8 March 2007:
1.) Dismiss the appeal by Karol Beck dated 1 December 2006.
(…).
