Sport arbitration and the question of human rights compliance: assessing the aftermath of the ECtHR’s Mutu and Pechstein judgment

Abstract This article will discuss the question of non-compliance with the Mutu and Pechstein judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) by Switzerland and, more critically, by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). It will examine how CAS’s interpretation of the judgment is at odds with the ECtHR’s holding and how this divergence has led to issues of non-compliance. This process has undermined the application of Article 6(1) protections in CAS arbitral proceedings and reduced the ECtHR’s Mutu and Pechstein judgment to a largely symbolic gesture without any real impact. This research argues that the unique characteristics of CAS proceedings require tailored measures to ensure true public hearings. It concludes that the institutional structure and operation of CAS appear to have become a matter of political salience for Switzerland, which leads the state to adopt a resistant stance towards complying with judgments that place pressure on CAS.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of International Dispute Settlement
Published
2026-01-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idag001
Primary Topic
Doping in Sports
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Sport arbitration and the question of human rights compliance: assessing the aftermath of the ECtHR’s Mutu and Pechstein judgment

Faraz Shahlaei
Journal of International Dispute Settlement
Doping in Sports
article

Sport arbitration and the question of human rights compliance: assessing the aftermath of the ECtHR’s Mutu and Pechstein judgment

Faraz Shahlaei
article en

Abstract

Abstract This article will discuss the question of non-compliance with the Mutu and Pechstein judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) by Switzerland and, more critically, by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). It will examine how CAS’s interpretation of the judgment is at odds with the ECtHR’s holding and how this divergence has led to issues of non-compliance. This process has undermined the application of Article 6(1) protections in CAS arbitral proceedings and reduced the ECtHR’s Mutu and Pechstein judgment to a largely symbolic gesture without any real impact. This research argues that the unique characteristics of CAS proceedings require tailored measures to ensure true public hearings. It concludes that the institutional structure and operation of CAS appear to have become a matter of political salience for Switzerland, which leads the state to adopt a resistant stance towards complying with judgments that place pressure on CAS.

Journal of International Dispute SettlementVol. 17(1)
Loyola Marymount University (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 51%
Doping in Sports
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.