Jurisdiction Disputes Between SFT and CAS: A Complex Legal Landscape

The jurisdiction of the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) to review Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) awards has emerged as one of the most contentious issues in international sports law. This complex relationship between Swiss and the wider EU arbitration law and sports dispute resolution has been shaped by numerous judicial pronouncements that continue to redefine the boundaries of review and jurisdiction.

I. The Fundamental Framework

Under Chapter 12 of the Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA), the Swiss Federal Tribunal holds exclusive jurisdiction to review international arbitral awards rendered by tribunals seated in Switzerland[1]. Article 190(2)[2] PILA establishes five limited grounds for challenging CAS awards: improper constitution of the arbitral tribunal, incorrect ruling on jurisdiction, decisions beyond submitted claims, violation of the right to be heard, and violation of Swiss public policy[3].

The significance of this framework cannot be overstated, as CAS processes approximately 1,000 proceedings annually, with the vast majority serving as an appellate instance for decisions by national and international sports federations[4]. The SFT's review represents the final recourse for parties seeking to challenge these awards, creating a critical gateway that determines the finality of sports arbitration decisions.

 II. The Kompetenz-Kompetenz (Competence-Competence) Principle

Swiss law grants arbitral tribunals the authority to assess their own jurisdiction under Article 186.1[5] [6]. This competence-competence principle allows tribunals to render preliminary decisions on jurisdiction, which can be challenged before the SFT within 30 days[7]. Recent jurisprudence has clarified that the content of an award, rather than its form or title, determines whether jurisdictional issues have been definitively resolved[8].

The SFT has consistently maintained that it freely assesses the accurate application of law regarding jurisdictional questions while being bound by the arbitral tribunal's factual findings[9]. This creates a nuanced framework where legal interpretation remains subject to SFT review, but factual determinations by arbitral panels are generally insulated from challenge.

III. Limitations on Jurisdictional Challenges

Recent decisions have emphasized that jurisdictional objections must be raised in a party's first substantive submission, or they will be barred due to implied consent to arbitral jurisdiction. This procedural requirement has been strictly enforced, with the SFT rejecting belated jurisdictional challenges as inadmissible.

Furthermore, the 2024 jurisprudence has clarified that CAS jurisdiction cannot exceed the jurisdiction of previous instances[10]. This principle was particularly relevant in cases where the FIFA Disciplinary Committee's limited jurisdiction was contested in subsequent CAS proceedings.

IV. The EU Law Challenge

IV.I The Seraing Decision and Its Implications

The most significant development in 2025 has been the European Court of Justice's ruling in the RFC Seraing[11] case, which fundamentally challenged the traditional relationship between CAS awards and national court review[12]. The CJEU held that national courts in EU member states must be empowered to conduct in-depth judicial review of CAS awards to ensure compliance with EU public policy.

This decision arose from a decade-long dispute between FIFA and Belgian club RFC Seraing over third-party ownership regulations. The Belgian Court of Cassation referred questions to the CJEU regarding whether national law could grant arbitral awards res judicata effect when reviewed by courts of non-EU states[13].

 

IV.II Advocate General's Expansive Proposal

In January 2025, Advocate General Ćapeta proposed an even more radical approach, suggesting that CAS awards should be subject to full review by national courts for compliance with all EU laws, not merely public policy violations. The AG argued that the mandatory nature of CAS arbitration, imposed on athletes and clubs by sports federations, distinguished it from commercial arbitration and warranted expanded judicial review[14].

The AG's reasoning centered on the principle of effective judicial protection under EU law, noting that neither CAS nor the Swiss Federal Tribunal could ensure compliance with EU law or make references to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU[15]. This proposal, if adopted, would have fundamentally altered the finality of CAS awards throughout the European Union.

IV.III The CJEU's Measured Response

The CJEU ultimately adopted a more restrained approach than the Advocate General proposed, limiting review to EU public policy matters[16]. The Court affirmed that national courts may review CAS awards only on grounds of EU public policy, encompassing fundamental principles such as procedural fairness, non-discrimination, and competition law prohibitions[17].

This decision aligns with the New York Convention framework while creating a specific carve-out for EU public policy concerns. The CJEU recognized sports arbitration as a legitimate mechanism ensuring uniform treatment of sporting disputes while maintaining that certain fundamental EU principles cannot be compromised[18].

 V. Practical Implications for Jurisdiction Disputes

V.I The High Threshold for Successful Challenges

Statistical analysis reveals the difficulty of successfully challenging CAS awards before the SFT. In 2024, the success rate for overturning international awards was exceptionally low, with only one successful application among 58 decisions rendered[19]. This represents a success rate significantly below the historical average of approximately 6-7%[20].

The SFT has consistently maintained a high admissibility threshold, emphasizing that appeals of an appellatory nature are generally inadmissible[21]. Parties must demonstrate specific procedural irregularities or violations of fundamental rights rather than challenging the merits of arbitral decisions.

V.II Procedural Formalities and Timing Requirements

Recent jurisprudence has reinforced strict procedural requirements for jurisdictional challenges. The SFT has clarified that parties have an obligation to raise procedural irregularities and violations of the right to be heard in an explicit and unequivocal manner as soon as they arise[22]. This requirement has been particularly emphasized following the 2021 modification of Article 182 paragraph 2 PILA.

The timing of jurisdictional challenges has also been strictly enforced. In several 2024 decisions, the SFT dismissed challenges where parties failed to object to jurisdiction during the arbitral proceedings but attempted to raise such issues only in post-award challenge proceedings[23].

VI. Emerging Tensions and Future Challenges

VI.I The Independence Question

The relationship between CAS and the SFT has been complicated by questions regarding the true independence of sports arbitration. Some critics have argued that CAS's institutional connections to sports federations compromise its independence, potentially affecting the legitimacy of SFT review[24].

Recent ECtHR jurisprudence, particularly in cases like Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland, has raised questions about whether mandatory sports arbitration provides adequate access to justice[25]. These concerns have influenced EU courts' willingness to accept CAS awards as final and binding without further review.

VI.II The Enforcement Dilemma

A unique aspect of sports arbitration that distinguishes it from commercial arbitration is its self-enforcing nature[26]. Unlike commercial arbitration awards that require court enforcement through exequatur proceedings, sports sanctions can be implemented directly by federations following CAS decisions[27]. This characteristic has been cited by EU courts as justification for enhanced judicial review, arguing that the absence of enforcement proceedings eliminates opportunities for substantive legal review.

VII. Conclusion

The jurisdiction disputes between the SFT and CAS represent a fundamental tension between the autonomy of sports arbitration and the sovereignty of national legal systems. Recent judicial pronouncements have created a complex landscape where the finality of CAS awards depends increasingly on the jurisdiction in which recognition or enforcement is sought.

While the SFT maintains its position as the exclusive reviewer of CAS awards under Swiss law, the evolving EU approach has created parallel review mechanisms that may substantially alter the practical finality of sports arbitration decisions. The CJEU's measured approach in the Seraing decision represents a compromise between respecting arbitral autonomy and ensuring compliance with fundamental EU principles.

These developments suggest that the traditional model of sports arbitration finality is undergoing significant transformation. Future disputes are likely to center on defining the precise boundaries of EU public policy, the scope of mandatory arbitration principles, and the practical implementation of parallel review systems. The resolution of these issues will determine whether sports arbitration can maintain its efficiency and uniformity while adapting to evolving expectations of judicial oversight and fundamental rights protection.

The ongoing evolution of this legal framework requires careful monitoring by practitioners, sports organizations, and judicial authorities to ensure that the benefits of specialized sports dispute resolution are preserved while addressing legitimate concerns about access to justice and compliance with fundamental legal principles.

[1] Sumin Jo, 2024 Arbitration Year in Review – Switzerland - Daily Jus, Daily Jus - Your daily dose of arbitration and legal industry insights (Mar. 14, 2024), https://dailyjus.com/world/2025/03/2024-arbitration-year-in-review-switzerland.

[2] Swiss Private International Law Act, 1989, Art.190.

[3] Ibid

[4] Vitus Derungs, Appeal Against CAS Decisions Before the Swiss Federal Tribunal, LinkedIn (Aug. 19, 2024), https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/appeal-against-cas-decisions-before-swiss-federal-tribunal-derungs-xag8e.

[5] Swiss Private International Law Act, 1989, Art.190.

[6] Courtny Furner, Vasiliki Dritsa & Vera Bykova, Jurisprudence of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in Setting Aside and Revision Proceedings Involving Investment Arbitration Awards (2020 to 2022): Strengthening Switzerland as a Pro-Arbitration Jurisdiction (2023), https://www.lalive.law/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/JusMundi-pdf-document.pdf

[7] Ibid

[8] Ibid

[9] Ibid

[10]  Despina Mavromati, Compilation of Swiss Federal Tribunal Judgments From 2023 - Sportlegis, Sportlegis(Dec. 19, 2023), https://www.sportlegis.com/2023/12/19/compilation-of-swiss-federal-tribunal-judgments-from-2023/.

[11] Royal Football Club Seraing v. FIFA, C-600/23

[12] Archit Vyas, Limited CAS Review Upheld: Europe’s Stance Confirmed, GCSEL(Aug. 13, 2025), https://www.gcsel.com/post/limited-cas-review-upheld-europe-s-stance-confirmed.

[13] Ibid

[14] Jasper Wauters, Andrew de Lotbinière McDougall KC & Nikolas Hertel, C-600/23: ECJ Advocate General Proposes Full Review of CAS Awards Involving EU Law | White & Case LLP, White & Case LLP International Law Firm, Global Law Practice(Jan. 25, 2025), https://www.whitecase.com/insight/c-60023-ecj-advocate-general-proposes-full-review-cas-awards-involving-eu-law.

[15] Ibid

[16] Supra note 8

[17] Supra note 8

[18] Icas Statement on Review of Cas Awards by European Courts for Matters of Eu Public Policy, Statement (2025), https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ICAS_statement_CJEU_Seraing_ENG.pdf?utm_source=perplexity.

[19] Supra note 1

[20] Supra note 15

[21] Supra note 8

[22] Supra note 8

[23] Supra note 8

[24] Semenya vs Switzerland – A New Standard of Review of Sports Arbitration Awards - Macfarlanes, Macfarlanes(July 25, 2025), https://www.macfarlanes.com/what-we-think/102eli5/semenya-vs-switzerland-a-new-standard-of-review-of-sports-arbitration-awards-102kxog/.

[25] Ibid

[26] Supra note 11

[27] Supra note 11