DUE PROCESS IN SPORTS ARBITRATION: THE APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 6 ECHR TO CAS PROCEEDINGS

Objective: The objective of this study is to investigate the applicability and enforceability of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in the context of arbitration before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), with the aim of assessing whether CAS proceedings comply with the procedural guarantees of a fair trial, particularly in light of their quasi-mandatory nature for professional athletes. Theoretical Framework: This research is grounded in the legal theory of human rights enforcement, international arbitration law, and the principle of procedural fairness. The work draws upon jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, Swiss arbitration doctrine, and scholarly contributions regarding binding arbitration and access to justice. Jan Paulsson’s theory on the state’s role in legitimizing arbitral authority, as well as the European Court’s evolving interpretation of Article 6, provides a foundation for analyzing the legal status of CAS. Method: The methodology adopted for this research comprises a qualitative, doctrinal legal analysis of primary legal sources (e.g., ECHR, CAS Code, Swiss arbitration laws) and case law (ECtHR and Swiss Federal Tribunal rulings). Data collection was conducted through legal document review, including academic commentary, international arbitration jurisprudence, and comparative legal frameworks. The approach is analytical and interpretive, aiming to identify how procedural rights are conceptualized and applied within CAS proceedings. Results and Discussion: The results revealed that CAS, although structured as a private arbitral body, performs a quasi-judicial function and is bound to uphold the guarantees of Article 6 of the ECHR. The discussion contextualizes this finding by comparing sports arbitration with traditional voluntary arbitration, highlighting the structural imbalance between athletes and sports federations. The Mutu and Pechstein judgment is examined as a turning point in recognizing CAS’s obligations under human rights law. The study also acknowledges limitations related to the limited scope of judicial review available under Swiss law. Research Implication: The practical and theoretical implications of this research suggest that procedural safeguards in sports arbitration must be reinforced through further reforms of CAS rules and closer judicial scrutiny by the Swiss Federal Tribunal. These insights are relevant for international sports law, human rights compliance in private legal orders, and institutional governance of dispute resolution in global athletics. Originality/Value: This study contributes to the literature by offering a focused legal analysis of CAS’s compatibility with Article 6 ECHR, emphasizing its unique status as a de facto mandatory arbitral body. The originality lies in synthesizing ECtHR and Swiss jurisprudence to assess how fundamental rights operate within a specialized, non-state adjudicative mechanism. The relevance of this research is demonstrated by its implications for athlete protections and the legitimacy of international sports governance.