CAS 2010/A/2083 UCI v/ Jan Ullrich & Swiss Olympic - Partial Award on Jurisdiction
Related cases:
- CAS 2010_A_2070 Antidoping Switzerland vs Jan Ullrich
November 30, 2011 - CAS 2010_A_2083 UCI vs Jan Ullrich & Swiss Olympic
February 9, 2012
Jan Ullrich, is a German former professional road cyclist resident in Switzerland. Among other achievements, Ullrich was the winner of the 1997 Tour de France and the gold medalist in the men’s individual road race at the Sydney 2000 Summer Olympic Games. Prior to the events in question in 2006, Ullrich was a member of the T-Mobile professional cycling team, a member of Swiss Cycling, and a UCI license-holder.
In 2004, the Spanish Guardia Civil and the Investigating magistrate no. 31 of Madrid opened an investigation that has come to be known as “Operation Puerto.” Pursuant to this investigation, on May 23, 2006 searches were carried out on two Madrid apartments belonging to a Spanish physician, Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes. Documents and other materials were seized from the apartments, including evidence of possible doping offences by athletes.
The Guardia Civil drafted a report (Report no 116) dated June 27, 2006, which made reference to certain of the materials seized from the apartments and showed that the Athlete had contact with Dr Fuentes. As a consequence of Report no 116 the International Cycling Union (UCI) requested Swiss Cycling to open disciplinary proceedings against the Athlete. In October 2006 the Athlete resigned his membership from Swiss Cycling and announced his retirement from professional cycling.
However on 30 January 2010 the Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic decided to close the case and the investigations against the Athlete because Ullrich was no longer member of the Swiss Cycling and they had no jurisdiction after he retired.
Hereafter in March 2010 the UCI appealed the decision of Swiss Olympic with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The UCI requested the Panel to annul and reform the decision of 30 January 2010 and to impose a lifetime ineligibility on the Athlete.
In these preliminary proceedings with CAS the Athlete argued that there is no arbitration agreement under Swiss Law that binds the parties to these proceedings, and that as a result CAS has no jurisdiction. By contrast the UCI submits that the jurisdiction of the CAS is established under Articles 6(1) and 6(2) of the ICA.
The Athlete disputed that he agreed to any arbitration provision through the completion of the application form submitted to Swiss Cycling. In essence, his argument focuses on the nature of his relationship to the UCI.
He pointed out that his application was for membership in Swiss Cycling, not the UCI, and that he has never been a member of UCI. He contended that absent membership (or even an application for membership in an organization), he could not have agreed to the rules of an association to which he did not belong.
The Panel is of the view that, despite the absence of formal membership in the UCI, the Athlete's rights and obligations under his licence clearly created a special relationship between himself and the UCI that is akin to membership. Furthermore the Panel establishes that there is a valid arbitration agreement under Article 6(1) of the ICA.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 March 2011 that:
1.) The CAS acknowledgea its jurisdiction over the appeal submitted by the UCI against the Decision.
2.) The objection submitted by Mr. Jan Ullrich that the CAS has no jurisdiction to hear this matter is dismissed,
3.) The costs connected with Mr. Jan UlIrich's objections related to junsdiction and with the present partial award shall be determined in the final award.
