迪米特里奧?潘那吉奧托普勒斯（希臘），楊蓓蕾譯

在解決糾紛的框架下，一般法律原則與法的基礎(chǔ)理論、法律適用直接關(guān)聯(lián)。此外，一般法律原則也是解釋法律適用的重要工具。

在國(guó)際領(lǐng)域，一般法律原則的存在，保證了判斷的一致性，也確保了法律的統(tǒng)一和管理的有效性。

1 關(guān)于一般法律原則

根據(jù)國(guó)際法及其理論，一般法律原則意味著法律教義，她是帶有不同的文化色彩和不同管理制度的法律文化信仰。在國(guó)際層面，一般法律原則引用國(guó)家法律原則，這些法律原則適用于國(guó)際關(guān)系【注1】。這些原則改變了特定的國(guó)家性，通過國(guó)際法律體系為國(guó)際關(guān)系服務(wù)【注2】。通過這種方式，國(guó)內(nèi)法與國(guó)際法律秩序銜接在一起，互相融合，確保了系統(tǒng)性的統(tǒng)一【注3】。

1.1 歷史數(shù)據(jù)

首先，“一般法律原則”出現(xiàn)在雅典法律（即希臘法）及古希臘地方法律。柏拉圖【注4】和亞里斯多德經(jīng)常提到的法律原則形式如：比例原則【注5】和司法公正原則【注6】，后來被羅馬法稱為“公平原則”【注7】。與成文法【注8】相比，衡平法中的原則更有利于司法執(zhí)行。在雅典法中，一般法律原則是研究與自然法相關(guān)司法含義時(shí)的爭(zhēng)論焦點(diǎn)，形成了所謂的“諸神之戰(zhàn)的本質(zhì)”【注9】。這些法律原則中的很多原則已成為現(xiàn)代希臘民法典【注10】及現(xiàn)代國(guó)際法的基礎(chǔ)原則，如“對(duì)事實(shí)公認(rèn)不諱”的強(qiáng)制性在于“事先授予”【注11】，就像是國(guó)際法規(guī)則“有約必守”原則【注12】。

在20世紀(jì)早期，一般法律原則是實(shí)證法的內(nèi)容，這在常設(shè)國(guó)際法庭（1920-1946）規(guī)章和今天的海牙國(guó)際法庭規(guī)章第38條1款有明確規(guī)定。規(guī)定指出國(guó)際法庭在缺乏國(guó)際條約和國(guó)際慣例的情況下，應(yīng)適用作為國(guó)際法補(bǔ)充淵源的“文明國(guó)家公認(rèn)的一般法律原則”【注13】。文明國(guó)家公認(rèn)的一般法律原則含歐洲人權(quán)公約(EΣΔA) 第7條第2款，公民政治權(quán)利國(guó)際公約【注14】第15條第2款。

1.2 國(guó)際體育法院體系和一般法律原則

國(guó)際體育活動(dòng)超出了國(guó)家的界限，形成國(guó)際特殊體育法律秩序【注15】，國(guó)家體育聯(lián)合會(huì)遵守該秩序【注16】，國(guó)際體育法律秩序在處理國(guó)家內(nèi)部事務(wù)時(shí)是有效的，在一定程度上取代國(guó)家法適用于國(guó)內(nèi)體育（如Lex Sportiva）【注17】。

國(guó)際奧委會(huì)是體育的最高機(jī)構(gòu)，通過國(guó)際體育聯(lián)盟和國(guó)家奧委會(huì)的認(rèn)可，國(guó)際奧委會(huì)成為制定奧林匹克憲章的關(guān)鍵機(jī)構(gòu)（如奧林匹克法法)【注18】。

體育司法秩序的程序和淵源與傳統(tǒng)的法律程序和淵源不同【注19】，傳統(tǒng)的法律中國(guó)家法律要素占主導(dǎo)。為了解決糾紛和在體育系統(tǒng)內(nèi)建立程序法，已設(shè)立了國(guó)際體育仲裁院（CAS）。在憲法規(guī)定的正義外，有一種司法叫“有機(jī)司法”，由“有機(jī)法院”裁定糾紛【注20】，就如CAS【注21】是體育法制管理的特殊機(jī)構(gòu)。

幾乎所有的解決體育糾紛的國(guó)際聯(lián)盟的章程都有排他管轄的規(guī)定，設(shè)有具體的排他性條款【注22】。這樣以來，盡管各國(guó)家體育法或國(guó)家聯(lián)盟章程可能設(shè)定不同規(guī)章【注23】，但國(guó)家隊(duì)是國(guó)際體育聯(lián)盟成員，都要遵守國(guó)際聯(lián)盟章程，國(guó)際體育仲裁院就具有排他性解決體育糾紛的管轄權(quán)【注24】。

盡管國(guó)際體育仲裁院在國(guó)家或國(guó)際層面上屬于非政府仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)，但它是管理國(guó)家層面和國(guó)際層面體育機(jī)構(gòu)的重要組成部分【注25】。例如，遵循先例必須要建立在程序效率原則、公平正義原則和類似案件相同對(duì)待原則之上，只有這樣程序才是有效的，否則便像很多人擔(dān)心的那樣，國(guó)際體育仲裁院冒充國(guó)家法庭，而產(chǎn)生很多問題【注26】。

2 一般法律原則在Lex Sportiva中的適用

在國(guó)際體育法律秩序即Lex Sportiva——奧林匹克法的框架下，研究一般法律原則的適用及其在國(guó)家體育法中的作用，也從一般法律原則的適用到本質(zhì)功能及判例法本質(zhì)的研究，也在研究一般法律原則在塑造法庭權(quán)威及Lex Sportiva系統(tǒng)穩(wěn)定性方面的作用。

國(guó)際體育仲裁院和其臨時(shí)機(jī)構(gòu)通過適用一般法律原則【注27】，解決體育糾紛，國(guó)際體育仲裁院和臨時(shí)機(jī)構(gòu)的司法關(guān)鍵在于現(xiàn)有和公認(rèn)的規(guī)則。這些現(xiàn)有和公認(rèn)的規(guī)則不僅源于體育領(lǐng)域還源于國(guó)際領(lǐng)域主要法律系統(tǒng)【注28】。這些法律系統(tǒng)通常禁止濫用或適用不合理規(guī)則，這些都屬于一般法律原則【注29】。CAS第98/2000判決書強(qiáng)調(diào)了體育領(lǐng)域一般法律原則的重要性。該判決書指出：“……在過去的若干年中，在仲裁糾紛解決中已創(chuàng)設(shè)一套不成文的法律原則，無論這些原則是源于章程還是國(guó)內(nèi)法，只要與國(guó)內(nèi)規(guī)則“公序良俗”不矛盾，國(guó)內(nèi)和國(guó)際聯(lián)盟必須遵守這些法律原則【注30】?！?/p>

在這點(diǎn)上，這些原則屬于商法領(lǐng)域【注31】，但他們創(chuàng)設(shè)的Lex Sportiva并是一個(gè)非國(guó)家管轄范疇，一些學(xué)者同意判決書的觀點(diǎn)（判決書認(rèn)為是無效的），他們僅僅是強(qiáng)行應(yīng)用，運(yùn)動(dòng)中的體育規(guī)則（lex ludica）是法律。但他們并沒有將Lex Sportiva看做是非國(guó)家管轄體系，一些學(xué)者也這樣認(rèn)為，因?yàn)樯鲜鰶Q定認(rèn)為無效，但他們?cè)谌魏伟讣胁粩鄰?qiáng)化，體育規(guī)則才是法【注32】。這是因?yàn)?，正如我們?cè)忉尩模绻覀兇_實(shí)面對(duì)體育規(guī)則，就不是法。但，僅僅Lex Sportiva被排除【注33】。

為了了解一般法律原則的本質(zhì)，并找出他們?nèi)绾斡欣隗w育領(lǐng)域法律執(zhí)行及影響司法，我們研究一般法律原則的內(nèi)容和種類。一般法律原則是Lex Sportiva的一個(gè)淵源。

3 分類

研究表明一般法律原則因適用范圍不同而不同：（1）一般法律原則是國(guó)際原則；（2）一般法律原則適用于人權(quán)事件；（3）作為L(zhǎng)ex Sportiva的體育本質(zhì)原則不分國(guó)界被廣泛認(rèn)可；（4）國(guó)際體育法原則受到國(guó)際反興奮劑法律的重視。

3.1 廣泛接受的一般法律原則——“公平正義”

在CAS的決定中，經(jīng)常會(huì)參考“非書面體育法原則”。所有的國(guó)際單項(xiàng)聯(lián)合會(huì)及其俱樂部或運(yùn)動(dòng)員（就算他們不是國(guó)際體育單項(xiàng)聯(lián)合會(huì)的會(huì)員）都應(yīng)當(dāng)遵守這些原則尤其是基本程序原則【注34】。正當(dāng)程序原則和公平審判原則的重要性的特征是有權(quán)在法院或其他司法機(jī)構(gòu)前對(duì)仲裁裁決書辯解。仲裁裁決書必須送達(dá)到當(dāng)事人以為其提供適當(dāng)?shù)霓q護(hù)。

3.1.1 武器平等原則【注3355】

此原則是國(guó)際公認(rèn)的保障當(dāng)事人聽證的原則【注36】。權(quán)利含：（1）當(dāng)事人有權(quán)準(zhǔn)備辯護(hù)；（2）當(dāng)事人參加到質(zhì)證環(huán)節(jié)，對(duì)程序結(jié)果發(fā)表看法【注37】。

3.1.2 誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則

CAS認(rèn)為運(yùn)動(dòng)員和俱樂部在體育司法管轄方面發(fā)生分歧時(shí)適用誠(chéng)實(shí)守信原則【注38】。誠(chéng)實(shí)守信原則適用取決于體育聯(lián)盟作為合同方的義務(wù)。體育聯(lián)盟要維護(hù)其成員的權(quán)利和競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。要正確適用、平等對(duì)待【注39】，才能對(duì)每個(gè)人都正確適用法律法規(guī)，體育聯(lián)盟的決定才有理由。 誠(chéng)實(shí)守信原則【注40】，保障約定體育關(guān)系中的交易道德免于受到非法行為的侵害【注41】，這些非法行為侵害他人合理期望【注42】。

體育的特殊性【注43】指需要考慮到受傷的特殊性。這種傷害會(huì)導(dǎo)致受傷運(yùn)動(dòng)員違約，而在計(jì)算違約損害賠償金時(shí)，運(yùn)動(dòng)員的身價(jià)不能忽視【注44】。在案件中，法院要考慮到體育獨(dú)立性【注45】、足球運(yùn)動(dòng)員自由流動(dòng)【注46】，還必須要考慮到體育市場(chǎng)。

CAS在此方面的解釋擴(kuò)寬了Lex Sportiva的范圍，數(shù)據(jù)不僅基于一般法律原則應(yīng)用，還基于其特殊性。

3.1.3 共同過失原則

體育特殊性與合同穩(wěn)定性原則，受傷方有權(quán)索賠因?qū)Ψ竭`約而產(chǎn)生的所有損失不矛盾，適用共同過失原則【注47】。無論是俱樂部還是運(yùn)動(dòng)員違約，同樣適用該規(guī)則。為確保公平，即使體育組織有不同觀點(diǎn)【注48】，法院適用體育特殊性原則，非從局限的民法（普通法）角度解決案件，而是考慮到體育界特殊性及利益(當(dāng)事人組成體育界)，以達(dá)成決定。因?yàn)槠胶飧鞣嚼?，決定被認(rèn)為是合適的【注49】。

3.1.4 比例原則

比例原則【注50】在反興奮劑案件應(yīng)用。一般原則是體育法的基礎(chǔ)，犯罪的嚴(yán)重性與懲罰度需成比例【注51】。根據(jù)現(xiàn)有立法 “……犯罪嚴(yán)重性與懲罰程度成比例”體育仲裁庭在很多案例已經(jīng)證明比例原則的重要性【注52】。只要他們認(rèn)為“不成比例”指濫用或不公正，根據(jù)“強(qiáng)化而非弱化立法者宗旨”原則，國(guó)際聯(lián)盟所行使相關(guān)規(guī)則所規(guī)定的處罰應(yīng)當(dāng)被撤銷【注53】。

3.1.5 從寬原則 —公平合理原則

從寬原則-公平合理原則【注54】和仲裁有本質(zhì)不同。仲裁是在法律下，根據(jù)此原則 “雙方當(dāng)事人可要求仲裁庭根據(jù)從寬原則決定”【注55】。根據(jù)仲裁、和解一般條款，正如亞里斯多德在“裁判是寬松的力量”中所做的巧妙分析，調(diào)解要雙方自愿、誠(chéng)實(shí)信用，遵循從寬原則【注56】。 這是因?yàn)椤爱?dāng)裁判被要求公平裁定，他所尋求的司法執(zhí)行可能與現(xiàn)存法律不一致，甚至?xí)嚆！薄咀?7】。從本質(zhì)上講，如果仲裁員公允裁判，他可能僅僅依據(jù)公平原則裁定，便會(huì)忽視法律，不應(yīng)用一般法律規(guī)則或抽象法律規(guī)則，他必須完全遵循案件事實(shí)?；@球仲裁規(guī)則第15條第1款證實(shí)了該觀點(diǎn)。第15條第1款規(guī)定裁判適用“不參照任何國(guó)家或國(guó)際法的前提下實(shí)現(xiàn)一般司法公正”【注58】。在此基礎(chǔ)上，協(xié)議本身賦予單方棄權(quán)或在另一方未支付工資時(shí)，原合同賦予追討工資權(quán)利，裁判基于公平原則斷案。

3.2 基本人權(quán)原則

保護(hù)基本人權(quán)原則，與憲法所賦予的保障人身自由權(quán)利直接相關(guān)，在體育司法中也適用。這些原則包括參加體育運(yùn)動(dòng)的自由權(quán)，運(yùn)動(dòng)員自身發(fā)展自由【注59】。當(dāng)個(gè)人權(quán)利保護(hù)與公共利益沖突，優(yōu)先保護(hù)公共利益【注60】，或與保護(hù)真實(shí)體育競(jìng)賽結(jié)果【注61】公正性沖突，優(yōu)先公正性保護(hù)。特別是反興奮劑案件，參加比賽和最終結(jié)果優(yōu)先于個(gè)人權(quán)利保護(hù)。這也解釋了為什么在這些案件中，上訴解決糾紛一成不變地適用嚴(yán)格責(zé)任原則【注62】。

3.3 體育特性原則

“體育法的一般或重要原則”、“體育公正問題”是CAS標(biāo)志性特征，這些特征在世界各地體育活動(dòng)中都得到了發(fā)展。這些原則關(guān)系到“體育完整性”，關(guān)系著人們的感覺和公共意識(shí)。正如日常生活和商業(yè)及體育中【注63】，誠(chéng)實(shí)守信原則、完整性原則決定體育活動(dòng)的態(tài)度。

3.3.1 “運(yùn)動(dòng)”原則

“運(yùn)動(dòng)”原則指整個(gè)體育和國(guó)際組織認(rèn)可的優(yōu)先原則。奧林匹克價(jià)值觀和理念，好的公平的比賽要在實(shí)現(xiàn)“公平”的原則基礎(chǔ)上【注64】。這些原則在國(guó)際體育框架和處理體育糾紛及奧林匹克糾紛方面廣泛應(yīng)用。

3.3.2 特別法優(yōu)于普通法原則

特別法優(yōu)于一般法原則，是公認(rèn)的一般法律原則，應(yīng)用于體育活動(dòng)，為體育比賽設(shè)定規(guī)則，這個(gè)原則優(yōu)于普通法【注65】。但是，只要規(guī)則與公共秩序相反，特別當(dāng)規(guī)則與國(guó)家所確立的法律經(jīng)濟(jì)秩序重要原則相反，體育法體系（Lex Sportiva）中的規(guī)則不適用，此時(shí)，為保證體育界人身、財(cái)產(chǎn)自由，應(yīng)適用國(guó)家法律。當(dāng)人身、財(cái)產(chǎn)自由受到影響，如無國(guó)際體育法框架，應(yīng)適用條約、習(xí)慣。

3.3.3 運(yùn)動(dòng)員協(xié)商原則

“事實(shí)”權(quán)【注66】和不公平談判（特別是運(yùn)動(dòng)員）是加入公約約定性部分。因此，無論其是運(yùn)動(dòng)員還是俱樂部，只要仲裁管轄在加入公約中有規(guī)定且與雙方當(dāng)事人協(xié)商不公平事務(wù)，有必要保護(hù)無能力者。當(dāng)事人的自主性會(huì)受到質(zhì)疑，因雙方當(dāng)事人實(shí)際權(quán)利不平等，仲裁的法律基礎(chǔ)受到質(zhì)疑，交易道德要求誠(chéng)實(shí)守信的一般法律原則及體育活動(dòng)中協(xié)商原則【注67】。原因在于這些規(guī)則強(qiáng)制性剝奪了運(yùn)動(dòng)員協(xié)商能力及自愿締結(jié)合同的自主性，造成運(yùn)動(dòng)員為參加體育活動(dòng)而被迫接受。在此類案件中，運(yùn)動(dòng)員選擇法院的自主性被剝奪，在聯(lián)盟的框架下，他服從機(jī)構(gòu)仲裁。然而，根據(jù)上述一般法律原則，這些國(guó)家和國(guó)際合同得不到保證，得不到公正審判，因?yàn)榻?jīng)常由普通法官解決。

3.3.4 一個(gè)體育聯(lián)盟原則框架下的體育國(guó)家化原則

在一個(gè)體育聯(lián)盟框架下的“體育國(guó)籍”》原則【注68】，含基礎(chǔ)體育原則?；A(chǔ)體育原則塑造法律規(guī)則，法律規(guī)則以國(guó)內(nèi)國(guó)際立法形式記錄并為體育世界采納【注69】。正如CAS決定中所寫，體育法律秩序適用“體育國(guó)籍”原則，這是“獨(dú)特的體育觀”。根據(jù)法律，這個(gè)原則指運(yùn)動(dòng)員不以“合法公民”參與國(guó)際競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，涉及個(gè)人地位和國(guó)家法律秩序【注70】。在體育司法中，“……有兩個(gè)不同法律秩序，一個(gè)是公法，一個(gè)私法，公法私法不沖突交叉……FIBA規(guī)則，和籃球運(yùn)動(dòng)員的體育公民資格有關(guān)，不涉及國(guó)家管轄…”【注71】。體育本質(zhì)原則在CAS和臨時(shí)仲裁庭有很多應(yīng)用的例子。根據(jù)體育仲裁庭的規(guī)定，案例必須在體育競(jìng)技和紀(jì)律程序規(guī)定的框架下【注72】。

3.4 國(guó)際體育法框架下的一般法律原則

直接證據(jù)規(guī)則【注73】、興奮劑案件適用的“嚴(yán)格責(zé)任”要考慮瑞士法、國(guó)際仲裁法【注74】。

3.4.1 嚴(yán)格責(zé)任原則

世界反興奮劑規(guī)則采納“法律推定”，正如CAS及國(guó)內(nèi)國(guó)際體育機(jī)構(gòu)所做的。根據(jù)推定，在其身體里檢測(cè)出違禁藥品時(shí)即推定運(yùn)動(dòng)員違反興奮劑規(guī)則而承擔(dān)責(zé)任。否則，如體育司法慣例，反興奮劑的斗爭(zhēng)會(huì)受到質(zhì)疑【注75】。在這個(gè)框架下，根據(jù)CAS仲裁決定，維護(hù)公平正義的進(jìn)程在參賽者中加重，如今，參加體育運(yùn)動(dòng)和公平競(jìng)賽的權(quán)利放在重中之重。違反公平競(jìng)賽者受到嚴(yán)厲處罰【注76】，對(duì)CAS而言這是“體育公平”。運(yùn)動(dòng)員在興奮劑檢測(cè)呈陽性會(huì)受到處罰，即使其沒有過錯(cuò)，也要受到處罰。運(yùn)動(dòng)員受到指控不是因?yàn)槠湄?zé)任未得到完全救濟(jì)而是因?yàn)椤皣?yán)格責(zé)任”【注77】。

CAS在內(nèi)的體育法庭傳統(tǒng)上認(rèn)為“運(yùn)動(dòng)員有責(zé)任確保體內(nèi)無違禁物”【注78】。事實(shí)也證明了這一觀點(diǎn)。違反興奮劑的體育組織或俱樂部稱他們不得不證明這一指控而承擔(dān)責(zé)任，但一紙相關(guān)實(shí)驗(yàn)室所出具實(shí)驗(yàn)報(bào)告足以讓他們豁免，而被告運(yùn)動(dòng)員則要承擔(dān)更重的舉證責(zé)任。

在“嚴(yán)格責(zé)任原則”框架下，適用“教條法原則”。根據(jù)此原則，如果違反反興奮劑問題發(fā)生，所帶來的危害比較嚴(yán)重，則適用接受刑罰。在紀(jì)律處罰中適用該原則，如使用促蛋白合成物質(zhì)【注79】。

3.4.2 《相反證據(jù)》原則

根據(jù)CAS司法【注80】，嚴(yán)格責(zé)任原則【注81】通過《相反證據(jù)》原則以減輕責(zé)任。根據(jù)本原則，可推翻運(yùn)動(dòng)員有罪推定。但，考慮到運(yùn)動(dòng)員可操作空間狹小，這一原則可能被證明過于樂觀。根據(jù)預(yù)定校對(duì)方法，從CAS自身及相關(guān)體育規(guī)則，推定被逐步推翻。如果證明運(yùn)動(dòng)員不知道他曾使用違禁物，或他對(duì)物質(zhì)成分錯(cuò)誤認(rèn)識(shí)，或他身體產(chǎn)生違禁物，或他不知道這些物質(zhì)或他曾顯示終極關(guān)懷或第三方故意而導(dǎo)致其體內(nèi)產(chǎn)生違禁物，推論被推翻。他得有“開脫罪名證據(jù)”或其他“具體證據(jù)”【注82】，以便鐵上釘釘證明他無罪。當(dāng)然，運(yùn)動(dòng)員提供的證據(jù)都會(huì)有唯一機(jī)會(huì)驗(yàn)證，以上所述都含一個(gè)普通基礎(chǔ)的原則。CAS考慮到運(yùn)動(dòng)員的人身和運(yùn)動(dòng)經(jīng)歷和習(xí)慣在內(nèi)的所有事實(shí)【注83】。

最后，整個(gè)問題只圍繞兩個(gè)基本點(diǎn)：一是運(yùn)動(dòng)員服用興奮劑，另一方面所有其他運(yùn)動(dòng)員“純粹”競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。

4 體育法淵源和全球體育法判例的格式化

一般法律原則對(duì)仲裁很重要，CAS的態(tài)度決定其決定。這些法律原則適用不僅需要法律以適當(dāng)方式授權(quán)而且新興判例法包括安全措施以確保具體案例法不僅適用服務(wù)全球體育法系統(tǒng)。否則，一般法律原則成為全球體育法的法律淵源。

CAS和臨時(shí)機(jī)構(gòu)依據(jù)國(guó)際條約和慣例有權(quán)利調(diào)查重審（denovο）案件, 憑借自由心證從法律和事實(shí)角度審查指控的有效性，對(duì)“正當(dāng)程序”審查【注84】，不介入國(guó)際體育和奧林匹克的技術(shù)性事件。裁判體育組織決定的不公正或比例失當(dāng)或懲罰濫用或不公正，僅基于違反“一般法律原則”，行為無效【注85】。在一般法律原則下加強(qiáng)全球體育法系統(tǒng)。

當(dāng)然，能將國(guó)家或國(guó)際法庭和司法組織的司法管轄和CAS仲裁程序等同。CAS仲裁員組成提供必要的仲裁程序保障，賦予仲裁必要的權(quán)威和效力，以至他們對(duì)當(dāng)事人和體育社團(tuán)、國(guó)際體育組織有約束力。

5 結(jié)論

5.1 為加強(qiáng)CAS作用，一般法律原則適用是體育界一直努力的部分。通過一般法律原則，將CAS法庭合法化，成為體育仲裁的私人組織機(jī)構(gòu)。雖然CAS已經(jīng)建立解決所有體育糾紛的排他性，但仍存在CAS管轄權(quán)局限性及誰可以影響CAS的裁決的問題。

這些一般法律原則在體育運(yùn)動(dòng)領(lǐng)域的應(yīng)用，是執(zhí)行規(guī)定的仲裁規(guī)則的保障，是國(guó)際體育領(lǐng)域的Lex Sportiva 的重要法源，但主要還是增強(qiáng)體育自治和國(guó)際體育管理系統(tǒng)。

5.2 如果不建立新的Lex Sportiva ，CAS的司法就缺法合法化的基礎(chǔ)，如同lex luddiiccaa一樣。但它增強(qiáng)了在一般法律原則實(shí)施的框架下，被稱為L(zhǎng)ex Sportiva 的“非國(guó)家聯(lián)合”的法律秩序，形成了體育法原則，并適用于Lex Sportiva 及許多國(guó)際體育法領(lǐng)域。

5.3 案例法不會(huì)在實(shí)施一般法律原則下自然形成，它的運(yùn)作離不開Lex Sportiva 法律原則的支持，這也被認(rèn)為是合法的必要。

注釋：

【注1】See. G. Tenekidis (1978), International Relations Sociology, p.20.

【注2】Certain principles of domestic law, are applicable in foro domestico and can be included in international law as the only alternative, if there is no international treaty or custom, See. Ε.Roukounas(1997), ?International Law–1st issue? , Α. Sakoulas,Athens-Komotini, p. 225-229.

【注3】Κ. Ioannou (1975) ?The application of generally accepted rules of international law in the Greek legal Order? , in: Armenopoulos,15

【注4】Plato, Laws 757e

【注5】Aristotle, Politics d 12.

【注6】Aristotle Rhitorics Α, 137a και Ethical Nikomachia, V.10,31137β

【注7】Digesta, 2, 14,7.

【注8】Diels Vors 6,15

【注9】See, Sextos Empirical, Gorgias: Concerning the existing of its nature.

【注10】See. P. Kiriakopoulos (2002), Ancient Greek Law, Modern Publishing Athens, pp. 683-698.

【注11】Hypereides, by Athenagoras, 13..

【注12】G.Tenekidis (1936) The validity of acts of domestic law objects to the international legally, Athens, pp. 138, see also Dimitrios P. Panagiotopoulos (2007), International and Olympic Sports Institutions, Nom Library: Athens, pp. 141-143.

【注13】See Roukounas E. (1997) International Law, Volume One Second Edition, pp. 225-229 A. Sacks, K. Ioannou - K.Economides - C. Rozakis - Fatouros (1988), Public International Law-theory of sources, A. Sacks ¨ Athens-Komotini, pp. 348-408,A..Verdross (1935), “Les principes généraux du droit dans la jurisprudence internationale” R.C.A.D.I. (II), B.Cheng (1959){1987} “General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals.

【注14】See case Golder 1975, which were considered "every relevant rules of international applicable law in the relations between the contracting relationships."

【注15】See. Dimitrios P. Panagiotopoulos (2011) Sports Law : Lex Sportiva &Lex Olympica, Ant. N. Sakoulas, Athens pp123-151, see also ibid (2002), "Sports Legal Order in National and International Sport Life'', 8th IASL Congress Uruguay, Modevideo Nov.28-30, 2001, in: Revista Brasileira De Direito Sportivo(Instituto Brasileiro De Direito Desportivo), no: 2, Pp. 7-17 and in:International Sports Law Review Pandektis, Vol. 4:3, pp. 227-242.

【注16】Related to the legal nature of international organizations and the process of their establishing See. Julio A. Barberis(1983), "Nouvelles questions concernant la personnalité juridique Internationale", RCADI, vol. 179, 213. For matters of international sports organization, See. P. Jacq (1988) "L Organisation Internationale du Sport", in: Sport, Droit et Relations Internationales [P. Collomb (ed.) l, EconOmica: Paris, (1-59), pp.17.

【注17】See. relevant Decision of Belgian Court, No 14295, Judges Newspaper, Belgium 30, 4. 1977. see Dimitrios P.Panagiotopoulos(2011) Sports Law Lex Sportiva & Lex Olympica, Ant.Sakkoulas:Athens pp. 202-120, also see J. Nafziger (1988),International Sports Law, Transnational publishers, inc. New York, and D. Panagiotopoulos (1991), Olympic Games Law,Ant. Sakkoulas: Athens p. 200, Also. D. Panagiotopoulos (ed.1993), The Institution of the Olympic Games: A Multidisciplinary Approach, Telethrion: Athens, pp.311-317.

【注18】See. relevant Decision of Belgian Court, No 14295, Judges Newspaper, Belgium 30, 4. 1977. see Dimitrios P.Panagiotopoulos(2011) Sports Law Lex Sportiva & Lex Olympica, Ant.Sakkoulas:Athens pp. 202-120, also see J. Nafziger (1988),International Sports Law, Transnational publishers, inc. New York, and D. Panagiotopoulos (1991), Olympic Games Law,Ant. Sakkoulas: Athens p. 200, Also. D. Panagiotopoulos (ed.1993), The Institution of the Olympic Games: A Multidisciplinary Approach, Telethrion: Athens, pp.311-317.

【注19】See. Christopher C, Joyner-Oscar Schlachter (1995),"The United Nations Legal Order", ASIL, vol. 1, p. 56 επ. και Francesco Capotorti (1994), "Course general de droit international public", RCADIIV, p. Ill,see also. for Lex sportiva and trditional law,Dimitrios Panagiotopoulos (2011), Lex Sportiva […] pp. 143-148..

【注20】See. Gerald Simon, "Le con fl it sportif un con fl it de normes?"in Droitet Sport, PiermarcoZen-Ruf fi nen(ed), Staemp fl i editions SA: Berne, pp.103-105.

【注21】For the process of solving arbitrational disputes see P. Dedes,A. Zanklis (2006), The Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne,Nomiki Library: Athens, pp. 25-46.

【注22】Recently, the same national courts have supported their ability to decide on the validity of the decisions of federations related to athletes, both in domestic and international issues, See. A. Pina(2005), op. cit., 9-10, alsoι T. Theochari (1999), as above, p. 108.

【注23】See. article 63 par. 6 FIFA statutes as it amended in Buenos Aires 7-7-2001.

【注24】The Football Referees Court will operate under the auspices of the International Court of Football Arbitration, funding for which will be the responsibility of the FIFA Executive Committee,See. article 63 FIFA. also, Τ.Μ.ASSER Institute (2001), "FIFA Establishes Independent Football Arbitration Tribunal", in: The International Sports law Journal, Issue 1, pp.31-32.

【注25】See. Christopher Vedder (2005) "The IAAF heritage [...], op.cit., p. 17.

【注26】J A.R. Nafziger (2004), "Lex Sportiva", in International Sports Law Journal, 4:1/2, pp. 3-4.

【注27】See. Μ. Reeb “Digest of CAS Awards 1986-1998” Editions Staemp fl i SA- Berne, ibid, “Digest of CAS Awards II - 1998-2000” Kluwer Law International, “Digest of CAS Awards III-2001-2003” Kluwer Law International Staemp fl i Publishers Ltd.Berne, Sweet & Maxwell’s International Sports Law Review,March 2001 – Issue I - 3 also. See. ΔΔΑ: www.tas-cas.org.

【注28】See. above K. Ioannou (1975) ?The application of generally accepted rules of international law in the Greek legal system? , G.Tenekidis (1978), International Relations Sociology.

【注29】See the case: AEK Athens & SK Slavia Prague/ Union of European Football Associations (UEFA)- 1999 , CAS 98/200,in: Reeb “Digest of CAS Awards II-1998-2000” op. Cit , p. 102-103. The Decision lays down the right to be heard - a principle of procedural fairness, in accordance with Community law (thoughts 155-157), also. CAS 96/157 FIN/FINA - 1997, OG 96/006 M. v.AIBA.

【注30】CAS 98/200 (AEK Athens & SK Slavia Prague/ Union of European Football Associations (UEFA)- 1999 , σε: Reeb “Digest of CAS Awards II-1998-2000” op. Cit , The Decision lays down the right to be heard - a principle of procedural fairness,in accordance with Community law (thoughts 155-157 σελ. 102-103), ?πω? και CAS 96/157 FIN/FINA - 1997, OG 96/006 M. v.AIBA.

【注31】For the special nature of this autonomous legal order, See.Dimitrios Panagiotopoulos (2011) Sports Law Lex Sportiva& Lex Olympica , Ant Sakkoulas :Athens, pp.71-87, also Pampoukis (1996), Lex mercatoria, Sakkoulas, p. 17, also see.Ch. Pampoukis (2007), ?Lex Sportiva: meaning and function of a native international legal order?, in LEX SPORTIVA (ΕΚΕΑΔ journal), Vol. 6, p.3.

【注32】For this view of the sports emerging legal order, solely on the basis of the jurisprudence of CAS, See. J. Nafziger (1988)“International Sports Law” 2nd edition - Transnational Publishers Inc N. York (p. 57-61), Reeb “Digest of CAS Awards II-1998-2000” Kluwer Law International p. xxx, McLaren (2001)“Introducing the Court of Arbitration for Sport: The Ad Hoc Division at the Olympic Games”12 MARQ. SPORTS L. REV.515.

【注33】Dimitrios P. Panagiotopoulos, Wang Xiaoping (2013),SPORTS LAW: Structures, Practice, Justice - Sports Science and Studies,EKEAD:Athens, pp, 29-30, see also, Dimitrios P.Panagiotopoulos (2009), “Sports Law Foundation: Lex Sportiva,a Fundamental Institutional Approach”, in: Sports Law: an Emerging Legal Order - Human Rights of Athletes, Nomiki Vivliothiki: Athens, pp. 20-22 and in: International Sports law Review Pandektis, Vol.8, Issues 1-2, pp 6-14, ibid see also (2008),“Lex Sportiva and sporting jurisdictional order”, in: In-ternational Sports law Review Pandektis, Vol. 8:3-4, pp. 335-373.

【注34】See. CAS 98/200, op. Cit (thought 158 p. 103 ) and CAS OG 96/001 US Swimming v. FINA - 1996, 96/153 W. v. ACF.

【注35】See. CAS 2002/O/410 {The Gibraltar Football Association(GFA)/ Union des Associations Europeennes de Football (UEFA)-2003}, and 98/200 (ΑΕΚ Athens και Slabia Prague against UEFA

【注36】Endorsed ICA 88/15, Aug. 311988 Respect the right of a prior hearing, in: Dimitrios Panagiotopoulos (2006) .Sports Law Ι,Sports Jurisdiction, Nomiki Bibliothiki: Athens p. 311, also CAS(Ο.Α. Ad hoc Atlanta 1996) 005)1-8-1996 participants Exclusion from the Olympics, the right for a hearing., ibid p.337. See also.Greek Juridical system. sub. 1, article 101.

【注37】CAS 2005/A/895 {Barbara Lisarague & Federation Francaise d’ Equitation & Emirates International Endurance Racing, the Organizing Committee of the FEI Endurance World Championship 2005 / FEI & HH Sheikh Hazza Bin Sultan Bin Zayed Al Nahyan - 2006}: horse doping – Litigating ability - legitimate interest: thoughts 92 -93 p. 23 and 2000/A/281 {H. / Federation Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM) - 2000}: thought 8 p. 415 and 99/A/253 {T./ FEI - 2000}: horse ridding – horses mistreated- procedural fl aws in fi rst instance discussion (thoughts 9 p. 525-526): ?… changing the chairman, who took place in this case during the hearing of the disciplinary proceedings before the judicial committee of FEI, is such so as to invalidate the process in its essence that has been selected, since the president who attended had not involvement after the decision, while his active participation did direct the course of the process and probably influenced the decision... Furthermore, the denial of the FEI judicial Committee to accept suggestions for additional expert evidence, consists a violation of the applicant's right to defend himself and so, he was unable to " exploit " all legal means, which was available under this general principle of law..?.

【注38】CAS 87/10 ( 15-7-1989), Principle of good faith, in: Βλ. Μ.Reeb “Digest of CAS Awards 1986-1998”...op. Cit, p. 3, also.,CAS 96/161, International Triathlon Union (ITU)/ Paci fi c Sports Corp. Inc.- 1999.

【注39】CAS, case 90/44 , Sept. 241991 Principle of equality and of non-discrimination of federation members. Dimitrios Panagiotopoulos (2006) Sports Law ΙΙ,... op.Cit, p.299.

【注40】See. Violation of good faith , CAS 96/153, Watt / Cycling Association of Australia (ACF) and Tyler-Sharman, adjudication of 22 of July 1996, in. Μ. Reeb “Digest of CAS Awards 1986-1998”...op. Cit, p.335.

【注41】CAS 96/161 {International Triathlon Union (ITU)/ Paci fi c Sports Corp. Inc.- 1999: ?An individual is not responsible for the company's liabilities, except for exceptional cases in accordance with the principle of ?piercing the corporate veil?, resulting from No. 2 Swiss Law… Given the Swiss law and the jurisprudence of the Court of the same, which has been widely accepted that principle ... According to the principle of good faith, this means that the shareholder must have improperly used the company for infringement of the law in the following ways: malicious behavior,to show intent to avoid its contractual obligations, to be mixed with the assets of the company and its shareholders, by capitalization,or enter into business actions without the professional official formalities? and CAS 2001/O/319 , X. Sarl/ Federation Y.– 2001.

【注42】CAS 98/200, 2002/O/401 speaks for the principle of “venire contra factum proprium”, according to which, when the behavior of a party has led to legitimate expectations by the second part, the fi rst part is prevented from changing its course of actions at the expense of the second part. But also in 2002/006 {NZOC / Salt Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC) – 2002}, for the exception of two athletes from participating in the Olympic Games of Salt Lake,CAS ad hoc applied as ?general principle of law? the ?principle of estoppel?, which arises when a party entirely relied and believed in the current statements of the other, that build up con fi dence and later it confronted to other party's claims that opposed to its previous behavior (justi fi ed belief).

【注43】specifically for this interpretation See. CAS 2007/A/1358 FC Pyunik Yerevan v/C., AFC Rapid Bucaresti and FIFA, thought 104-105, TAS 2005/A/902 Mexès and AS Roma c/ AJ Auxerre,TAS 2005/A/903 AJ Auxerre c./Mexès and AS Roma, thoughts 122-141)

【注44】CAS 2005/A/902 & 903, no. 122, CAS 2007/A/1298. 1299& 1300 no.120 as well as CAS 2007/A/1358, FC Pyunik Yerevan v/ Carl Lombe, AFC Rapid Bucaresti & FIFA, N 104 – 105;2007/A/1359, FC Pyunik Yerevan v/ Edel Apoula Eldima Bete,AFC Rapid Bucaresti & FIFA, N 107 – 108 ; CAS 2008/A/1568,Tomas Mica & football Club Wil 1900 v/IA & Club PC Naftex AC Bourgas, N 6.46 & 6.47 .

【注45】CAS 2008/A/1519 FC Shakhtar Donetsk (Ukraine) v/ Mr.Matuzalem Francelino de Silva (Brazil) & Real Zaragoza SAD(Spain) & FIFA, CAS 2008/A/1520 Mr. Matuzalem Francelino de Silva (Brazil) & Real Zaragoza SAD (Spain) v/ FC Shakhtar Donetsk (Ukraine)& FIFA, Contract of a professional football player. Article 17 of FIFA regulation. Athlete's right for pre-FIFA,premature and without due cause unilateral breach of contract by the player. Team's right for compensation. Height of compensation.Responsibility of the new team, in: Sports Law Review, Lex Sportiva, Vol. 9 (2013), pp. 137-148.

【注46】See. CAS 2007/A/1298, 1299 & 1300, no 131.

【注47】See. CAS 91/45 , March 31, 1992, Contributory athlete's negligence, in. Μ. Reeb, Digest of CAS Awards 1986-1998...op.Cit, p19.

【注48】FIFA had not had the same opinion when stated that CAS did not correctly interpreted Article 17 concerning the ?specificity of sports?, See. Media Release, Thursday 31 January 2008, that also expressed the fear that CAS decision will be devastating for the professional football system, since it is going to have as a consequence the inability of economically disadvantaged groups in order to keep their players.

【注49】See. CAS 2007/A/1298, 1299 & 1230. The Award in this CAS appeal was handed down on 30 January, 2008. Judgment on article 17 των FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,transfer to another team before the end of ?protection period?with 2 or 3 years durability, expiry of his contractual commitment.This judgment gives the option to the athletes, for new employer at a much lower cost and restricts the team ability to bind them if they wish to leave. For more, See. Dimitrios P. Panagiotopoulos(2011), “Lex Sportiva and International Legitimacy Governing:Protection of Professional Players”, US-China Law Review, Vol.8:87, pp 122-136.

【注50】CAS 2000/A/281, H. / Federation Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM) – 2000, thought 45, p. 422, CAS 91/53,95/141, 92/73, 96/156 and 95/141, 92/73, 96/156.

【注51】CAS 99/A/246 (W./ FEI- 2000), 95/141, 91/56, 92/63, 93/109,95/141, 96/157, 98/204 Also See. FIFA Disciplinary Committee,Tchipev v Makedonikos, thought 10, Concerning the points that will be removed, it is being imposed article 64 par. 3, according to which, the number of removable points must be proportional to the ammount in debt, in: Sports Law Review Lex Sportiva, Vol. 9(2013), p. 153.

【注52】The criteria for the implementation of the measures are set out in the decision of the case: McLain Ward v/ FEI (1999/A/246),which is registered in the decision of 2/A/430 Bliamou case v/FINA, also in Foschi case v/ FINA CAS 1996/56, in: Dimitrios Panagiotopoulos (2006) Sports Law ΙΙ,... op.Cit, pp.273-274, also Dimitrios P. Panagiotopoulos (2004), "International Sports Rules'Implementation – Decisions Executability", in: Marquette Sports Law Review, Vol. 5:1, pp.1-12 and Comment in ISLR/Pand., Vol.5:4, pp.304-307 and Fair Trial,16:6, pp. 1401-1415.

【注53】CAS 2001/A/357 , Nabokov & Russian Olympic Committee(ROC) & Russian Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF)- 2002, Ice Hockey– Ability to participate in the National team – interpreting statutes- citizenship and athletic citizenship in thoughts 25-26 p. 510 that?The fact that an athlete, without the knowledge of the federation,managed in the past to break the rules, does not mean that by this illegal action, other players can fi nd bene fi t, and nor to accept the allegation of unequal treatment, since the action of those athletes did not even dealt? also decision. 96/149, 2001/Α/317.

【注54】According to Belgian Law, article 187(2), that concerns International private Law, becoming from the article 31 (3) of Concordat intercantonal sur l’arbitrage (that was regulating the internal arbitration according to the previous state).

【注55】See article 1872, Swiss International Privet Law Act December 18, 1987.

【注56】See. Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1374 d, 19 as. " Και το ει? δ?αιταν μ?λλον ? ει? δ?κην βο?λεσθαι ι?ναι. ο γαρ διαιτητ?? το επιεικ?? ορ? ο δε δικαστ?? τον ν?μον. και το?του ?νεκα διαιτητ?? ευρ?θη,?πω? το επιεικ?? ισχ?ει", Also see. Aristotle in his work Athenian Constitution 53: ?Διαιτητ?? δ’ εισ?ν οι? αν εξηκοστ?ν ?το? ? ...?.For more See. D. Panagiotopoulos (1991), Olympic Games Law,Ant. Ν. Sakkoulas: Athens pp. 51-55.

【注57】See. Basketball Arbitral Tribunal – BAT, ΒAT 0056/2009,Branzova vs BC Nadezhda, Ex aequo et bono. Withdrawal from the contract. Criteria for this right recognition, in: Sports Law Review Lex Sportiva, Vol. 9 (2013), pp. 134-135., Also Redfern and Hunter Law and practice of International Commercial Arbitration, Sweet & Maxwell third edition (1999),p.2-72.

【注58】ΒAT has its headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland and is subject to Swiss law. Also: http://www. fi ba.com/pages/eng/fc/expe/fat/p/open%ADNodeIDs/16809/selNodeID/16809/pres.html

【注59】See. Swiss Law, article. 28 CL, and article 16 par. 9 Greek Constitution. Also. CAS 95/142, L./ International Amateur Swimming Federation (FINA), Judgment in February 14th,1996 Claiming compensation for breaching the contract and personality violation, in. Μ. Reeb “Digest of CAS Awards 1986-1998”...op.Cit, p. 225.

【注60】See., Swiss C.L. article 28

【注61】See. CAS 98/200 ,thoughts 25-27 and M Reeb, as above,p.52 .

【注62】See CAS 95/141 op.Cit , CAS 95/150 (28-6-1996) , See also for this issue Christopher Vender (2005) "The IAAF heritage Two Decades of Arbitration in Doping Related Disputes", in:International Sports law Journal, 2005: 3/4, pp.17-18,

【注63】Ibid CAS 98/200, considerations 22-54 pp. 51-63.

【注64】The Greek conception of fair "ε?", was forming the basis of Greek enlightenment in the fi fth century bc. Gorgias, showw the world taking particular characteristics in idealizational orbit between is (exists) and its opposite "Κ?σμο? π?λει μεν ευανδρ?α,σ?ματι δε κ?λλο?, ψυχ? δε σοφ?α, πρ?γματι δε αρετ?, λ?γω δε αλ?θεια ? τα δε εναντ?α το?των ακοσμ?α [...]". Fair, is being put in the center of the philosophical quest concerning the world due to the fact that the bravery of past ages is not enough, the meaning in the world of the city is being given with 'fairmanship' "ευανδρ?α",the simple fi ght cannot mark the meaning of the world but only the good fi ght, not even the simple life, but the prosperous life,See. Gorgias in Γοργ?α, Helen's Praise, 1. Trial and pudency is the pedestal of cities, "[...] Αιδ? τε και δ?κην ιν ειεν κ?σμοι π?λεων κ?σμοι τε και δεσμο? φιλ?α? συναγωγο?", Plato, Protagoras 13-15.Thucydides con fi rms this view when he says in his epitaph "[...] το ε?δαιμον, το ελε?θερον, το δε ελε?θερον το ε?ψυχον[...]", when Plato promises a ful fi lling and prosperous life. The considerations above are included in the work, announced by the author in the world congress of philosophy at the University of Athens May 19-21, 2002 titled "Κ?σμο?, Παν - Κ?σμον, Παγκοσμιον".

【注65】See. D. Panagiotopoulos (1999), "Sports Law - Special fi eld", in: Sports Law in 21st Century (1st Greek Sports Law Congress proceedings, Trikala 1999), Ιων: Athens, pp. 42-43,more in the book (2001), Sports Law Systematic Foundation and Implementation, Ant. N. Sakkoulas: Athens, pp. 72-74, also in:"Sports legal order in national and international sporting life", in:Proceedings 8th Congress of International Association of Sports Law, November 28-30, 2001, Mondevideo / Uruguay, and Sports Law a European Dimension, Ant. N. Sakkoulas: Athens, pp,15-27,also. M. Stathopoulos (1998), Sports and European Community Law , In: Proceedings 5th IASL Congress, Nafplion 10-12 July 1997, pp. 23-24, This consideration, Lex Sportiva in relation to Lex Mercatoria, adopted by A. Caiger και S. Gardiner (2000), in their work titled: Professional Sport in the EU: Regulation and Reregulation, Kluwer Law International: Hague, pp. 301-302. Lately,J.A Nafziger (2004), "Lex Sportiva", in: International Sports Law Journal (ISLJ), 1:2, pp.3-8 referring mainly to this.

【注66】So, the prevailing view of the jurisprudence concerning the German Federal Constitutional Court's about the limits of private autonomy: ?Since one of the two counterparties have so much bargaining power, so it can set unilaterally the contractual rules,it is a foreign will af fi liation for the other party. Where lacking the power balance of the parties, the means of contract law are not enough to ensure a fair balance of all parties interests. In such cases, if one party holds such a position of power , state laws must intervene balancing and ensuring the adequate protection of individual rights.?,See. BVerfG, Decision No. 1 BvR 26/84 from 07-02-1990, in: BVerfGE 81, p. 242 (254) and in: NJW 1990, p.1469.

【注67】See. This view is mainly supported by article 307 of the German C.L. according to which: ?General terms and conditions are powerless when incurring the other party, in contrast to the requirement of good faith?, See also. Greek C.L. in article 281.

【注68】CAS case 92/80, March 25, 1993, Double basketball athlete's nationality - Solid sporting nationality, in: Dimitrios Panagiotopoulos (2006) Sports Law ΙΙ ,op.Cit, p. 305.

【注69】Rules 31 par. 3, 32 par. 1 sub.par. Β, 51 Olympic Charter, also in article 19 par. 2 Law Νo. 2725/1999, as it has modi fi ed by the Laws No.3479/2006, 3372/2005, 3262/2004, 3057/2002.

【注70】See Rules 46 par. 1, 34 and 31 par.3 Olympic Charter.Dimitrios Panagiotopoulos (2005), " Amateur and professional specialty of the athletes and their participation in the Olympic Games ", in: Law and Olympic Games, International Conference of the Law School of Athens University Proceedings [Ν. Klamaris et.all (ed.)], Ant. Ν. Sakoulas: Athens, p. 230-231.

【注71】CAS 92/80 {B./ International Basketball Federation (FIBA)-1993}, and 98/209 {Spanish Basketball Federation (FEB)/ FIBA},94/123 {FIBA/ W. & Brandt Hagen e.V- 1994}.

【注72】CAS 96/005 {A., W., L. / NOC Cape Verde (NOC CV) - 1996}.

【注73】FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, FIFA DRC, Tchipev v Kallithea, concerning a player's transfer out of the transfer period.Unilateral contract termination. Non-payment of the accrued wages in: Sports Law Review Lex Sportiva, Vol. 9 (2013),consideration 18, p. 151.

【注74】This evidence are valid under the Swiss law. The CAS judge"referee" relies primarily on "direct evidence" giving the chance to the defendant party to be able to demonstrate the opposite, or at least to create doubt concerning the truth of such events, See.CAS 96/159 & 96/166 , A., C., F. and K./ International Equestrian Federation (FEI) – 1998,: horse riding – horse mistreatment –reverse proof in consideration 16, p. 454, 2003/O/482, Ariel Ortega/ Fenerbahce & FIFA, concerning football- breach of agreement: Regarding the unilateral termination of a contract and the existence of "justi fi able reason" (“just cause”) or "exceptional circumstances". In decision 2005/A/884 , Tyler Hamilton /USADA & UCI – 2006, consideration 70 pp. 22-23, concerning doping - World anti doping Code of WADA – burden of proof,according to which ?there was no concealment of documents so as to create doubts about the reliability of the test?, so the decision 2002/A/388, Ulker Sport/ Euroleague- 2002, in considerations 5-6 p. 519 .

【注75】CAS 98/214 {B. / Federation Internationale de Judo(FIJ) - 1999} and 95/141, 92/63 and 97/175 {Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) / A. - 1998}, 91/56, 92/73 and Swiss fed.Court decision 83/1999.

【注76】CAS 94/126 {N. / FEI - 1998}.

【注77】CAS 98/214 {B. / Federation Internationale de Judo (FIJ) -1999} and Swiss Federal Tribunal 5P. 83/1999 (N., J., Y., W. /FINA – 31.3.1999).

【注78】The fact that that this rule has been introduced in the World Anti-Doping Code is Of crucial importance (Article 2.1.1), while remarkable is the case of CAS: 2000/001 {USOC, USA Canoe-Kayak / IOC - 2000}, 2000/011 {Andreea Raducan / IOC - 2000}:doping – principle of ?absolute responsibility?, 2006/OG/001{WADA / USADA, USBSF & FIBT}: doping – burden of proof– unregistered prohibited substance: ?…As many panels of CAS have decided but also the WADA Code… It is a personal duty of every athlete to ensure that no prohibited substance has inserted into his/her body. In addition, every athlete is responsible for every prohibited substance found in samples taken from his body.?(consideration 4.13),

【注79】See. CAS 96/149 ( 13-31997) Doping from water polo player(salbutamol) Special state concerning salbutamol in IOC rules,Athlete's good faith in his failing to declare its use, in Μ. Reeb“Digest of CAS Awards 1986-1998”...op. Cit, p.251.

【注80】CAS 95/122 ( 5- 30-1996) Principle of strict liability, national basketball team exclusion from the Paralympic Games, in. Μ.Reeb “Digest of CAS Awards 1986-1998”...op. Cit, p.173.

【注81】CAS case 92/63, 15 Oct. 1992 and Case 92/86, April 19, 1993,Reversing the burden of proof - Counterevidence ability discharge for accusations exemption, in: Dimitrios Panagiotopoulos (2006)Sports Law ΙΙ ,..op.Cit, p.303-304. Also CAS 95/141, ( 22-4-1996),Use of prohibited substances by a swimmer (etilefrine). Two years exclusion. Strict liability, potential counterevidence, consideration of circumstances as mitigate, in Μ. Reeb “Digest of CAS Awards 1986-1998”...op. Cit, p. 205.

【注82】CAS 91/56 {S. / FEI-1992}

【注83】CAS 92/63 {G. / FEI- 1992}: horse doping – legal presumption- opportunity in rebuttal, 92/71 {SJ. / FEI - 1992}: horse doping– riders intentions – rider's obligation to exercise due diligence:(consideration 19 p. 143) ?the fact that the person knows that banned substances are being administered and did not receive all the necessary measures before the race, is at least such negligence to be compared with a deliberate and premeditated act to modify horse's performance and/or left to hide its health problem.?, 92/73{N. / FEI - 1992}: horse doping – rider's negligence – obligation to inform for the medical treatment of the horse, 92/86 {W. / FEI- 1992}: horse doping, 98/184 {P. / FEI - 1998}: horse riding -obligation to inform for the medical treatment of the horse.

【注84】CAS 95/142 and 94/129.

【注85】CAS 96/157 , Federazione Italiana Nuoto (FIN)/ Fe’de’ration Internationale de Natation Amateur (FINA)- 1997}, consideration 22 p. 359, concerning disciplinary offense - absence of individual penalties. ?…The decision-making body of the federation is the one that is in the position to decide which rules and which sanctions are fair and proportionate under the light of the facts that constitute the violation?, See 2002/002 , COA / FIS - 2002.