Uluslararası Spor Yönetişiminde CAS: Devletler, Meşruiyet ve Hukuki Sınırlar

Öz

Uluslararası Spor Tahkim Mahkemesi (CAS), 1984 yılındaki kuruluşundan bu yana uluslararası spor uyuşmazlıklarının çözümünde başlıca ulusötesi tahkim mercisi hâline gelmiştir. Devletlerarası antlaşmalarla kurulan uluslararası mahkemelerden farklı olarak CAS’ın yetkisi büyük ölçüde tahkim şartlarına, federasyon statülerine ve spora katılım kurallarına dayanmaktadır. Bu yapı, spor uyuşmazlıklarının uzmanlaşmış, hızlı ve görece tutarlı biçimde çözülmesine katkı sağlarken kurumsal bağımsızlık, meşruiyet, şeffaflık ve etkili yargısal koruma bakımından çeşitli tartışmalar doğurmaktadır. Bu çalışma, CAS’ın uluslararası spor yönetişimindeki konumunu; kurumsal yapısı, yönetişim düzenlemeleri, yorumlayıcı etkisi ve dış hukukî denetim mekanizmaları üzerinden incelemektedir. Nitel doküman analizine dayanan araştırmada on dört akademik çalışma ile dokuz birincil hukukî ve kurumsal belge değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, CAS içtihadının biçimsel olarak bağlayıcı emsal oluşturmamasına rağmen, sonraki uyuşmazlıklarda ikna edici bir başvuru kaynağı olarak lex sportiva’nın gelişimine katkı sağladığını göstermektedir. ICAS’ın yapısında ve mali raporlamada gerçekleştirilen değişiklikler kurumsal açıklığı artırmış olmakla birlikte temsil, atama süreçleri ve bağımsızlık algısına ilişkin tartışmalar sürmektedir. İsviçre Federal Mahkemesinin sınırlı iptal denetimi, Avrupa Birliği hukuku ve insan hakları hukukundan kaynaklanan etkili yargısal koruma talepleriyle tamamlanmaktadır. Ulusal ceza hukuku uygulamaları da sportif özerkliğin uluslararası spor kuruluşlarını kamusal hukuk denetiminin dışında bırakmadığını göstermektedir. Çalışma, CAS’ın meşruiyetini sürdürebilmesinin uzmanlaşmış tahkimi daha fazla şeffaflık, anlamlı temsil, usul güvenceleri ve etkili fakat sınırları belirlenmiş dış denetimle birleştirmesine bağlı olduğu sonucuna ulaşmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uluslararası Spor Tahkim Mahkemesi
• Spor Yönetişimi
• Avrupa Birliği
• İsviçre
• Spor Tahkimi.

CAS in International Sports Governance: States, Legitimacy, and Legal Limits

Öz

Since its establishment in 1984, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has become the principal transnational arbitral forum for international sports disputes. Unlike treaty-based international courts, its authority derives primarily from arbitration clauses, federation statutes, and participation rules. This structure supports specialization, speed, and a degree of consistency in sports dispute resolution, but it also raises questions concerning institutional independence, legitimacy, transparency, and effective judicial protection. This study examines the position of CAS within international sports governance, with particular attention to its institutional structure, governance arrangements, interpretive authority, and external legal constraints. Using qualitative document analysis, the study examines fourteen academic publications and nine primary legal and institutional documents. The findings show that CAS jurisprudence contributes to the development of lex sportiva by providing persuasive guidance in later disputes, although it does not constitute formally binding precedent. Recent changes in ICAS composition and financial reporting have improved institutional openness, but concerns remain regarding representation, appointment procedures, and the appearance of independence. The limited setting-aside review exercised by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court is increasingly supplemented by requirements arising from European Union law and human rights law. Domestic criminal enforcement further demonstrates that sporting autonomy does not place international sports organizations beyond public legal control. The study concludes that the continuing legitimacy of CAS depends on combining specialized arbitration with greater transparency, meaningful representation, procedural fairness, and effective but carefully limited external review.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Court of Arbitration for Sport
• Sports Governance
• European Union
• Switzerland
• Sports Arbitration.

Kaynakça

1. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
2. Casini, L. (2011). The making of a lex sportiva by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. German Law Journal, 12(5), 1317–1340.
3. Chappelet, J.-L. (2020). The governance of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. In D. Chatziefstathiou, B. García, & B. Séguin (Eds.), Routledge handbook of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (Chap. 31). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429440311-31
4. Court of Arbitration for Sport. (2025). Code of sports-related arbitration: In force as from 1 July 2025.
5. Downie, R. (2011). Improving the performance of sport’s ultimate umpire: Reforming the governance of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 12, 315–344.
6. Duval, A. (2015). The Court of Arbitration for Sport and EU law: Chronicle of an encounter. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 22(2), 224–255.
7. Duval, A. (2022). Lost in translation? The European Convention on Human Rights at the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The International Sports Law Journal, 22, 132–151.
8. Duval, A. (2024). The International Skating Union ruling of the CJEU and the future of CAS arbitration in transnational sports governance. The International Sports Law Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-024-00270-z

9. European Superleague Company SL v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), Case C-333/21, ECLI:EU:C:2023:1011 (Court of Justice of the European Union, Grand Chamber, December 21, 2023).
10. G. v. Fédération Equestre Internationale and Court of Arbitration for Sport (Gundel), BGE 119 II 271, Case No. 4P.217/1992 (Swiss Federal Supreme Court, March 15, 1993).
11. International Council of Arbitration for Sport. (2025). 2024 annual report and financial statements. International Skating Union v. European Commission and Others, Case C-124/21 P, ECLI:EU:C:2023:1012 (Court of Justice of the European Union, Grand Chamber, December 21, 2023).
12. Lenskyj, H. (2018). Sport exceptionalism and the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, 4(1), 5–17.
13. Lindholm, J. (2021). A legit supreme court of world sports? The CAS(e) for reform. The International Sports Law Journal, 21, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-021-00184-0
14. Lungstras, R. (2022). European Court of Human Rights, Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland, judgment of 2 October 2018. In Yearbook of international sports arbitration 2018–2020 (pp. 291–307). T.M.C. Asser Press.
15. Mitten, M. J. (2014). The Court of Arbitration for Sport and its global jurisprudence: International legal pluralism in a world without national boundaries. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 30(1), 1–44.
16. Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland, App. Nos. 40575/10 and 67474/10 (European Court of Human Rights, Third Section, October 2, 2018).
17. Reeb, M. (2004). The Court of Arbitration for Sport: History and operation. In M. Reeb (Ed.), Digest of CAS awards III 2001–2003 (pp. xxvii–xxx). Kluwer Law International.
18. Reilly, L. (2012). An introduction to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the role of national courts in international sports disputes. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2012(1), 63–81.
19. Rigozzi, A. (2010). Challenging awards of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 1(1), 217–265.
20. Royal Football Club Seraing v. FIFA and Others, Case C-600/23, ECLI:EU:C:2025:617 (Court of Justice of the European Union, Grand Chamber, August 1, 2025).
21. Swiss Confederation. (1987). Federal Act of 18 December 1987 on Private International Law (PILA) (SR 291), Chapter 12: International arbitration.
22. Şeker, E. Ö., & Göçmen, İ. (2025). Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanının güncel kararları ışığında iç pazar ve rekabet hukuku kesişiminde spor: Quo vadis? Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, 177, 281–330.
23. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs. (2015). Nine FIFA officials and five corporate executives indicted for racketeering conspiracy and corruption.