The CAS's refusal to control the decisions taken by the field referees

Boxers Mourad ALIEV (FRA) and Frazer CLARKE (GBR) faced each other on August 1, 2021 during the quarterfinals of the boxing events (over 91 kg category) of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games.

During Round 2, following a cut in the browbone of the British boxer, Mourad ALIEV was warned and then disqualified by the referee of the match.

At the end of the fight, Mourad ALIEV contested his disqualification with the International Olympic Committee's boxing working group ("IOC BTF"), the body responsible for organizing the Olympic Boxing competition in Tokyo following the IOC decision the suspension of the recognition of the International Boxing Association (AIBA).

The IOC BTF rejected its request, stating that the procedure for reviewing results by viewing does not concern the Tokyo 2020 Olympic tournament according to the amendments made to AIBA Rule 20 by the IOC BTF. The IOC BTF thus confirmed the decision taken by the match referee.

The French Boxing Federation (FFBoxe) and the French National Olympic and Sporting Committee (CNOSF) both having legal interests and Mourad ALIEV contested on August 2, 2021 the decision of the IOC BTF before the ad hoc Chamber of the Arbitral Tribunal of Sport (TAS). This ad hoc Chamber of CAS is competent, in accordance with the registration form signed by each participant in the Games, at thearticle 61 of the Olympic Charter and Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games, for all disputes arising during the Olympic Games or during a period of ten days preceding the Opening Ceremony.

They asked the ad hoc Chamber of CAS to receive their request, to find that the referee of the match committed minima a technical refereeing fault, to quash the disqualification decision pronounced by the referee and the decision of the Director of the IOC BTF confirming this decision and to resume the match by directing the IOC BTF to appoint a referee and different judges from those who officiated during the initial fight.

For its part, the IOC BTF asked the CAS arbitration panel to reject the claimants' conclusions and to confirm the contested decisions. The British Olympic Committee (BOA), also having an interest in bringing proceedings, asked the CAS to reject the claimants' claims.

In accordance with the ad hoc Rules of the CAS, the Arbitration Panel has the power to "review the facts underlying the request with full power of review" (Article 16 of the ad hoc CAS Rules), and "decides in accordance with the Olympic Charter, the applicable regulations, the general principles of law and the rules of law the application of which it considers appropriate." (Article 17 of the ad hoc CAS Rules).

Its control is limited to the violation:

• of the law,
• sports regulations,
• general principles of law (CAS JO 96/006 ; ATF 118 II 12/19).

On August 3, 2021, the ad hoc Chamber of the CAS rejected the request presented by Mourad ALIEV, the FFB and the CNOSF in application of its constant jurisprudence ("field of play") considering that :

"Nothing presented by the Applicants to this ad hoc Training allows it to believe that the origin of the disqualification is due to an act of fraud, bad faith or corruption of the match referee. This has been explicitly confirmed by all parties. Consequently, the ad hoc Panel can only adhere to the constant jurisprudence of the CAS according to which CAS referees refrain from revising the decisions taken on the playing field by the referees or other officials responsible for applying the rules of the game. game, unless there is evidence that these rules were applied arbitrarily or in bad faith (CAS OG 16/028 et CAS JO 96/006). This doctrine of the rules of the game, established as a fundamental principle of lex sportiva, is justified by the need to preserve the final character and the certainty of sports results falling under the authority of the referees of sporting events, the lack of technical expertise of members of arbitration tribunals, the need to avoid the interruption of competitions and the need to limit the risk of leaving the legal ground inundated with a flow of requests for the revision and rewriting of sports results (CAS 2015 / A / 4208)".