论文部分内容阅读
非诉纠纷解决方式的日益普及,乃大势所趋,这在体育界尤为明显。有一种观点认为:仲裁庭,特别是国际体育仲裁院(CAS),对与体育相关的纠纷享有专属管辖权。各种体育组织的章程和细则中附加的强制性仲裁条款,更是强化了这种管辖权。如果有运动员或俱乐部欲不履行强制性仲裁条款规定的义务,他们会被警告其行为可能被予以纪律处分,这种震慑保障了仲裁条款得以执行。由于体育的职业化特点,以及国际单项体育联合会占据的垄断地位,在纠纷发生后,运动员以及各体育俱乐部除了将争议提交仲裁解决以外别无选择。尽管强制性仲裁条款的效力仍受到人们质疑,但瑞士联邦最高法院却对这类强制仲裁条款予以认可。欧洲人权法院的判例表明:包含强制性条款的私人仲裁协议,可能会违反《欧洲人权公约》第6条第1款,特别是可能会侵犯当事人的诉权。虽然《欧洲人权公约》规定的基本权利一般不适用于私主体之间,但从国家负有保障人权的积极义务的概念,可以得出这一结论:国家及其机关(在本文中,尤其指瑞士联邦最高法院),有责任干预这种私人关系,以确切保障诉权的有效行使。
The increasing popularity of non-litigation dispute resolution methods is the trend of the times, which is particularly evident in the sports community. There is a perception that arbitration tribunals, and in particular the International Sports Court of Arbitration (CAS), have exclusive jurisdiction over sports-related disputes. This is also reinforced by the compulsory arbitration clause attached to the statutes and by-laws of various sports organizations. If an athlete or club wishes to fail to fulfill their obligations under a mandatory arbitration clause, they will be warned that their conduct may be subject to disciplinary action, a deterrent that guarantees the enforcement of the arbitration clause. Due to the professional nature of sports and the monopoly position held by the International Sports Federations, athletes and sports clubs have no choice but to submit their disputes to arbitration after disputes have taken place. Although the validity of the mandatory arbitration clause is still being questioned, the Supreme Court of the Swiss Confederation recognizes such mandatory arbitration clause. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights shows that a private arbitration agreement containing mandatory provisions may violate article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights and, in particular, may infringe upon the client’s right of action. Although the basic rights provided for in the ECHR generally do not apply to private entities, the concept of a State’s positive obligation to safeguard human rights leads to the conclusion that the State and its authorities (in this context, Swiss Federal Supreme Court) have a duty to intervene in such private relations in order to ensure the effective exercise of the right to action.