How difficult is Sun Yang to reverse the case?May wish to reopen the Daniel case 10 years ago

How difficult is Sun Yang to reverse the case?May wish to reopen the Daniel case 10 years ago
Last month, Sun Yang played in the champion swimming series in Beijing.Figure / Osports International Sports Arbitration Tribunal (CAS) announced today that Sun Yang ‘s eight-year verdict was banned.If the result of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s review is to revoke the judgment, the CAS must follow the relevant regulations.This point seems to have seen the possibility of Sun Yang overturning the case.But in fact, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court can only examine the legality of CAS arbitration procedures, not the fact finding.Judging from the “reversion rate” in the last decade or so, there are few cases where the Swiss Federal Supreme Court withdrew the CAS decision.According to relevant regulations, unless one of the following situations occurs, the decision may be withdrawn, that is, there is a problem with the composition of the arbitral tribunal, the arbitral tribunal has no distribution rights, arbitration violates the equality of disputes and the right to hearing, or violates Swiss public policy.According to relevant statistics, the number of cases reviewed and concluded by the CAS arbitral tribunal in the past ten years or so has appealed to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court for about 8% of the cases due to the dissatisfaction judgment.Of these appeal cases, only 6 cases were eventually revoked by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.Sun Yangsun issued a letter of commitment.Among them, a new decision that was replaced by the media for many times took place in 2010. In 1997, player Daniel requested to leave the team after adding a three-month contract to the Benfica club in Portugal, and then joined Atletico.Dissatisfied with this, Benfica told Atletico Madrid to FIFA, asking the other party to pay the training fund.After losing the case, Ma Jing appealed to the Zurich Commercial Court, and the court ruled that the FIFA judgment was invalid.In 2004, Benfica once again submitted a compensation request to FIFA for this matter. After the request was rejected, Benfica replaced the case and appealed to CAS.In 2009, CAS issued a ruling in support of Benfica’s request, Atletico had to pay the former 400,000 euros.Atletico, who was unable to accept the ruling, sued to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. Eventually, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court revoked the CAS judgment on the grounds of public policy.This is also the first time that the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has revoked the CAS ruling on the grounds of public policy since the Swiss Federal Private International Law came into effect in 1989.Relevant persons believe that public policy is the most sensitive reason for the restoration of the basis.Public policy includes substantive public policy and procedural public policy. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court pointed out in the judgment of the Daniel case that the “closed case” principle is part of the procedural public policy. The previous judgment of the Zurich Commercial Court was legal and CASThe ruling ignored the decision of the Zurich Commercial Court and was therefore revoked in advance.Returning to Sun Yang’s case of “violent resistance”, during the hearing, Sun Yang, FINA and the World Anti-Doping Agency have all confirmed that they have no objection to the random procedure, and it is unlikely to admit that it is contrary to the principle of equality of the hearingBe applicable.If you refer to the Daniel case, although the FINA often decides that Sun Yang is not responsible, the FINA is different from the Zurich Commercial Court in the Daniel case-the former is only an international sports organization, and its determination does not have legal effect and may not be “Closed case “.At present, Sun Yang has appointed a lawyer to appeal to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, but the success of the case may not be optimistic.Beijing News Sports commentator Zhou Xiao edited Wang Chunqiu to deal with Chun Suun