2016리오올림픽 국제스포츠중재재판소 반도핑중재부의 규정과 활동 = Rules and Activities of the CAS Anti-Doping Division at the Olympic Games Rio de Janeiro 2016

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

“This is a major step forward to make doping testing independent, following the decision of the IOC Executive Board three months ago after the proposal of the Olympic Summit. It represents support for the IOC’s zero tolerance policy in the fight against doping and in the protection of the clean athletes,” the IOC President Thomas Bach said.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has been adjudicating on a variety of disputes arising on the occasion of the Olympic Games (OG) through its CAS Ad Hoc Divisions since 1996. Over the years, it has dealt with qualification matters, doping and other disciplinary issues, primarily as a last instance body. The main particularity of the CAS Ad Hoc Divisions is that it provides athletes and federations with free access to justice within very short deadlines (generally, within 24 hours from lodging the claim or in accordance with the competition schedule).
The Rio Games established CAS Anti-Doping Division, ADD. For the first time in the history of the Olympic Games, the CAS was in charge of doping-related matters arising on the occasion of the Games as a first-instance authority. This CAS Anti-doping Division handled doping cases referred to it in accordance with the IOC Anti-doping Rules. It had the power to impose provisional suspensions pending the conclusion of the procedure and its final decisions could be appealed before the CAS ad hoc Division in Rio or before the CAS in Lausanne after the end of the Olympic Games.
The Executive Board (EB) of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) agreed to delegate the decisions on alleged anti-doping rule violations during the Olympic Games to an independent body. The CAS Anti-Doping Division replaced the IOC Disciplinary Commission to hear and decide on doping cases at the Olympic Games, as well as the subsequent re-analysis of samples taken at the Games. The move comes as part of the Olympic Agenda 2020 reforms, and follows the Resolution of the Fourth Olympic Summit to make anti-doping testing independent of sports organisations. The delegation by the IOC Executive Board to the CAS Anti-doping Division is pursuant to Rule 59.2.4 of the Olympic Charter.
Generally, the parties to an ADD procedure may be individual athletes (or members of the athlete’s entourage), IFs, the IOC, NOCs and WADA. The typical disputes brought before the ADD are anti-doping rule violations committed during the OG, therefore the application (that will be further examined below) is always filed by the IOC, as soon as the latter asserts an anti-doping rule violation. The sanctions determined by the CAS ADD are limited to the OG (i.e. disqualification from a sports event, withdrawal of medals, exclusion from the OG), and all further sanctions are then determined by the relevant IFs.
The ADD Rules apply in case of violations of the World Anti-doping Code (WADC) arising upon the occasion of the OG: the narrow scope of the ADD Rules is juxtaposed to the broader scope of the AHD Rules, which includes “any disputes covered by Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter, insofar as they arise during the Olympic Games or during a period of ten days preceding the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games”.( Article 1 AHD Rules). The temporal scope of jurisdiction of the AHD Rules is systematically examined by CAS Ad Hoc Panels and this should also be the case for the ADD Rules. However, in cases where all parties agree, they may waive their objections to the admissibility of the application and agree to have the matter heard by the AHD Panel.
The main procedural difference between the CAS ADD and the AHD Rules is that the former acts as the first instance authority for doping-related matters, responsible for the conduct of the proceedings and the rendering of decisions under the IOC ADR. As seen above, all these cases were so far decided by the IOC Executive Board upon recommendations by the Ad Hoc DC of the IOC. As held by the CAS ADD in its first case, there is no overl...

국문 초록 (Abstract)

스포츠중재재판소 (The Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland: CAS)는 1984년 설립된 후에 1996 년부터 특별중재부(Ad Hoc Division)를 설치하여 올림픽게임 (OG) 행사에서 발생하는 다양한 분쟁에 대해 중재결정을 내렸다. 수년 동안 선수자격 문제, 도핑 및 다른 징계 문제 등에 관하여 최후의 관할 역할을 수행하여 왔다. CAS 특별중재부의 가장 큰 특징은 운동 선수와 연맹이 매우 짧은 마감 시간 내에 무료로 분쟁해결의 기회를 제공한다는 것이다.
2016년 리오올림픽게임에서는 CAS Anti-Doping Division (ADD)을 설치하여 올 IOC 반 도핑 규칙에 따라 해당 도핑 사건을 처리했다.
일반적으로 CAS ADD 절차의 당사자는 운동선수, IF, IOC, NOC 및 WADA 일 수 있다. 반도핑중재부 설치 이전에 제기된 전형적인 분쟁은 반 도핑 규정 위반을 주장하자마자 IOC가 신청서를 제출한다. 반도핑중재부에 의해 결정되는 제재는 올림픽경기(즉, 스포츠 경기 결격, 메달 철회 등)로 제한되며 모든 추가 제재는 관련 국제경기연맹에 의해 결정된다.
반도핑중재규칙은 올림픽경기에 따라 발생하는 세계반도핑규약 (WADC)을 위반 한 경우에 적용된다. 반도핑중재규칙의 범위가 특별중재규칙보다 더 넓은 범위에 된다.
국제스포츠중재재판소는 2016 리우올림픽 관련 8건의 중재신청에 대하여 판정을 내렸다. 위 8건은 “국제스포츠중재재판소 도핑방지 중재부(CAS ADD)”에 신청된 건이었다. 즉, 중국 수영 선수의 도핑사건, 브라질 싸이클 선수의 도핑사건(동일 선수에 대하여 2건), 키르키즈스탄 역도 선수의 도핑사건, 몽골 역도 선수의 도핑사건의 중재신청사건에 대한 결정을 내렸다. 중재판정부는 국제올림픽위원회가 금지약물의 존재를 밝혔다는 것을 인정하였다. 따라서 국제올림픽위원회는 더 이상 선수 자격이 없다고 선언했으며, 임시자격정지를 인정하고, 선수들이 얻은 결과를 박탈하였다. 그리고 중재판정부는 해당 사건을 해당 종목의 국제스포츠연맹에 회부하여 리우올림픽 이외의 결정을 내리도록 하였다. 본건 판정은 선수들은 해당 경기와 직간접적으로 관련된 규정들을 숙지하고, 이를 준수해야 한다는 것을 시사하고 있다. 도핑 사건에 대한 분쟁은 특히 관련 규칙과 판단에 대한 깊은 이해가 필수적으로 요구된다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 小島武司, "｢裁判外紛争解決手続の利用の促進に関する法律｣の制定とスポーツ紛争の解決" 한국스포츠법학회 5 : 2004

2 연기영, "한국스포츠중재위원회의 설립과 활동" 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회 10 (10): 415-433, 2007

3 "일본스포츠중재기구 홈페이지"

4 연기영, "스포츠분쟁 해결기구의 설립방안" 한국스포츠법학회 5 : 2004

5 연기영, "스포츠법학 연구" 역락 2013

6 임건면, "스포츠 중재합의와 내용통제 - 독일에서의 논의를 고려하여 -" 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회 9 : 247-272, 2006

7 정승재, "스포츠 조정·중재제도의 법적 과제" 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회 11 (11): 61-78, 2008

8 김용섭, "도핑 규제의 법적 과제" 한국법학원 (115) : 183-202, 2010

9 "대한체육회 홈페이지"

10 "대한상사중재원 홈페이지"

11 "국제올림픽위원회 홈페이지"

12 연기영, "국제스포츠중재재판소(CAS)에 비추어 본 한국스포츠중재위원회(KSAC)의역할과 과제" 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회 11 (11): 91-127, 2008

13 김용섭, "국제스포츠중재재판소(CAS)를 통한 분쟁해결과 불복절차 - 독일 빙상선수 Claudia Pechstein 의 도핑사례 분석을 겸하여 -" 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회 19 (19): 91-116, 2016

14 "국제스포츠중재재판소 홈페이지"

15 廣田尙久, "紛爭解決學" 信山社 2002

16 石川明, "比較裁判外紛爭解決制度" 慶應義塾大學出版部 1997

17 道垣内正人, "日本スポーツ仲裁機構(JSAA)" (276) : 2-3, 2003

18 道垣内正人, "日本におけるスポーツ仲裁制度の設計---日本スポーツ仲裁機構（JSAA）発足にあたって" (1249) : 2-5, 2003

19 菅原哲朗, "寄稿　日本スポーツ仲裁機構" 55 (55): 50-, 2004

20 佐藤幸治, "司法制度改革" 有斐閣 2002

21 吳日煥, "中國에 있어서 스포츠仲裁制度의 樹立에 대한 檢討" 한국스포츠법학회 5 : 2004

22 八木由里, "オリンピック日本代表選出における紛争と ADR制度" 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회 8 : 327-349, 2006

23 Zöller, Richard, "Zivilprozessordnung" 2004

24 Herrmann,G., "UNCITRAL모델법의 채택, UNCITRAL모델중재법의 수용론" 1999

25 Ettinger, David J., "The Legal Status of The International Olympic Committee" 8 : 97-, 1992

26 McLaren, Richard H, "The Court of Arbitration for Sport: An Independent Arena for the World's Sports Disputes" 35 : 379-, 2001

27 Leaver, Peter, "The CAS Ad Hoc Division at the Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games 2002" (2) : 50-, 2002

28 Beloff, Michael, "The CAS Ad Hoc Division at The Sydney Olympic Games" (1) : 105-, 2001

29 Dogauchi, Masato, "The Activities of Japan Sports Arbitration Agency" 한국스포츠법학회 5 : 2004

30 McLaren, Richard H., "Introducing the Court of Arbitration for Sport: The Ad Hoc Division at the Olympic Games" 12 : 515-, 2001

31 McLaren, Richard H., "Introducing the Court of Arbitration for Sport: The Ad Hoc Division at the Olympic Games" 12 : 2001

32 Honsell, Heinrich, "International Arbitration in Switzerland"

33 Lionnet, Klaus, "Handbuch der internationalen and nationalen Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit" 2001

34 Duval, Antoine, "Getting to the Games: the Olympic Selection drama(s) at the Court of Arbitration for Sport" 16 (16): 2016

35 Schmitthoff, Clive M, "Export Trade : The Law and Practice of International Trade" Stevens & Sons 1990

36 Beloff, Michael, "Editorial" (4) : 77-, 2004

37 Haas, Ulrich, "Doping in Sport and the Law" Hart Publishing 2016

38 Raber, Nancy K., "Dispute Resolution in Olympic Sport: The Court of Arbitration for Sport" 8 : 75-, 1998

39 Matthieu Reeb, "Digest of CAS Awards III 2001-2003"

40 Matthieu Reeb, "Digest of CAS Awards II 1998-2000"

41 Haas, Ulrich, "Die Sportgerichtsbarkeit zwischen Individualrechtsschutz und Verbandsautonomie" 한국스포츠법학회 5 : 2004

42 Panagiotopoulos, Dimitrios, "Court of Arbitration for Sports" 6 : 49-, 1999

43 McLaren, Richard H., "Court of Arbitration for Sport: The Ad Hoc Division at the Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games" (2) : 51-, 2004

44 Kojima, Takeshi, "Civil Procedure and ADR in Japan, Series of the Institute of Comparative Law in Japan 65" Chuo University Press 2004

45 Locklear, R. Jake, "Arbitration in Olympic Disputes: Should Arbitrators Review The Field of Play Decisions of Officials?" 4 : 199-, 2003

46 Polvino, Anthony T., "Arbitration as Preventative Medicine for Olympic Ailments: The International Olympic Committee's Court of Arbitration for Sport and the Future for the Settlement of International Sporting Disputes" 8 : 347-, 1994

47 Cowper-Smith, Geoff, "Arbitrating Sports: The Beijing Summer Olympic Games: Decisions from the CAS and IOC" 10 (10): 2010

48 小島武司, "ADR의 實際와 理論I" 中央大學出版部 2003