Quick answer
In Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland (nos. 40575/10 and 67474/10, 2 October 2018), the European Court of Human Rights held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the alleged lack of independence and impartiality of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the second applicant because no public hearing was held before the CAS.
Background and facts
The first applicant was a professional footballer who signed an employment contract with Chelsea Football Club on 11 August 2003, having been transferred from AC Parma. After a positive drug test in October 2004 the contractual dispute that followed went through football’s dispute-resolution bodies and then to the CAS.
The second applicant was a professional speed skater sanctioned in disciplinary proceedings brought by her international federation. Her challenge likewise reached the CAS, where she had asked for a public hearing. In both cases the awards were then challenged before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court without success, and both applicants complained in Strasbourg that the arbitral process had not satisfied Article 6 § 1.
The complaints
Two distinct arguments were made. The first was structural: that the CAS was not an independent and impartial tribunal, given the arrangements then in force for appointing arbitrators and the influence of sports bodies over them. The second was specific to the second applicant: that she had requested a public hearing before the CAS and had not been given one.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court accepted that Article 6 § 1 applied, examining in particular whether the applicants’ acceptance of arbitration had been genuinely free — the question of compulsory arbitration that later became central in Semenya. On the structural complaint, having examined the appointment rules in force at the material time, it was not persuaded that the CAS lacked the requisite independence and impartiality in those cases.
The public-hearing complaint was different. The guarantee of a public hearing in Article 6 § 1 applied, the second applicant had asked for one, and no reason justified refusing it in proceedings of that kind. That failure alone produced a violation.
The judgment
- Unanimously, the complaints concerning independence and impartiality of the CAS and the absence of a public hearing were declared admissible; the remainder was inadmissible.
- By five votes to two, no violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards independence and impartiality of the CAS.
- Unanimously, a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the second applicant on account of the lack of a public hearing before the CAS.
- By five votes to two, EUR 8,000 to the second applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage; the remainder of the just-satisfaction claim was dismissed.
What this means for athletes and counsel
This is the judgment that shows how much turns on the precise guarantee invoked. The same institution, examined in the same proceedings, survived the structural challenge and failed on the procedural one. For anyone assessing a post-CAS complaint, the practical lesson is to identify the specific Article 6 guarantee engaged, and to check whether it was asked for and refused on the record — a request for a public hearing that was never made cannot found a complaint later.
The judgment remains the principal authority on procedural guarantees inside sports arbitration, including anti-doping disputes, while Semenya addresses what the reviewing national court must then do.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey: Independence of Football Arbitration
- Yokuşlu v. Türkiye: Football Arbitration and Article 6 After Reform
- Semenya v. Switzerland: Article 6, CAS Arbitration and Swiss Judicial Review
- Străin and Others v. Romania
- Brumărescu v. Romania
- Rotaru v. Romania
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, check the admissibility criteria, or get a free assessment of your case.
Read the full judgment on HUDOC (official ECHR database)
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Court hold that CAS is independent and impartial in general?
It found no violation on that ground in those cases, on the rules in force at the material time. That is not a permanent certificate: the analysis depends on the appointment arrangements and the circumstances put before the Court.
Does an athlete have a right to a public hearing before CAS?
Where Article 6 § 1 applies and a hearing is requested, the refusal has to be justified. The violation here followed from the request having been made and not granted, in disciplinary proceedings of a kind that attracted the guarantee.
How much compensation was awarded?
EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage to the second applicant. Just satisfaction in Strasbourg is not calibrated to the commercial value of a sporting career.