Last month, Sun Yang went to the champion swimming series in Beijing. Figure /Osports
This seems to show the possibility of Sun Yang turning over the case. However, in fact, the Supreme Court of the Swiss Federation can only review the legality of CAS arbitration proceedings, rather than the fact finding. Judging from the turnover rate of the last more than 10 years, there are few cases in which the Supreme Court of the Swiss Confederation revokes the CAS judgment. According to relevant regulations, an award can only be revoked if there is one of the following circumstances: the composition of the arbitral tribunal is questionable, the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction, the arbitration violates the equality and hearing rights of the parties, or violates Swiss public policy.
According to the statistics of relevant data, in the past ten years, about 8% of the cases accepted and concluded by CAS arbitration tribunal have appealed to the Supreme Court of Switzerland due to the dissatisfaction of the parties. Of these appeals, only six were finally dismissed by the Supreme Court of the Swiss Federation.
Sun Yang put out a letter of commitment.
Among them, the cancellation decision, which was repeatedly cited by the media, took place in 2010-1997, when player Daniel asked to leave the team after fulfilling a three-month contract at Benfica club in Portugal, and then joined Atletico Madrid. Benfica, who is not satisfied with this, will sue Atletico to FIFA and ask the other side to pay the training fee. After losing the case, Atletico appealed the case to Zurich commercial court, which ruled that FIFAs ruling was invalid. In 2004, Benfica again filed a claim for compensation with FIFA. After the claim was rejected, Benfica appealed the case to CAS. In 2009, CAS ruled in support of Benficas request, and Atletico had to pay 400000 euros for the former. Atletico, which could not accept the ruling, appealed to the Supreme Court of the Swiss Federation, which finally revoked CASs decision on the grounds of public policy. This is also the first time since the entry into force of Swiss Federal private international law in 1989 that the Supreme Court of the Swiss Federation revoked the CAS ruling on the basis of public policy.
Public policy is the most sensitive reason to withdraw the basis, according to relevant people. Public policy includes substantive public policy and procedural public policy. The Supreme Court of the Swiss Federation pointed out in the judgment of Daniel case that the principle of closed case is a part of procedural public policy, and the previous judgment of Zurich commercial court is legal, while CAS judgment ignored the judgment of Zurich commercial court, so it was revoked.
Back to Sun Yangs case of violent anti prosecution, during the hearing, Sun Yang, fina and the World Anti Doping Agency have confirmed that they have no objection to the arbitration procedure, and it is obviously not applicable to appeal on the grounds of violating the principle of equality in the hearing. If referring to Daniels case, although fina has previously ruled that Sun Yang is not responsible, fina is different from Zurich Commercial Court in Daniels case - the former is only an international sports organization, and its judgment has no legal effect and is not a closed case.
At present, Sun Yang has entrusted a lawyer to appeal to the Swiss Supreme Court, but the success of the case may not be optimistic.
Source: responsible editor of Beijing News: Cao Liqiao and ns1806