Facts
The professional cyclist A. was charged by the UCI for a doping offense and was sentenced by the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal to a four-year ban and a fine. A. then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and requested legal aid.
The ICAS granted A. an amount for travel and accommodation costs, but rejected his application for financial support for the costs of the arbitration proceedings and the appointment of a pro bono legal representative. A. then disputed the jurisdiction of the CAS and declared the arbitration agreement to be terminated, but was requested by the CAS to confirm his withdrawal.
Finally, a pro bono legal representative was appointed for A., and the arbitration proceedings were conducted. The CAS declared itself competent, reduced the fine, but otherwise confirmed the decision of the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed A.'s appeal. It stated that the exclusion of state-granted legal aid in arbitration proceedings does not prevent the parties or the arbitral institution from providing other solutions to enable arbitration proceedings despite the impecuniosity of a party. Since A. was represented by a pro bono lawyer and had access to the arbitral tribunal in the present case, there…