The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an order on November 9, 2005, in the case of R. v. Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), addressing a provisional suspension request related to a doping sanction. The case involved a player, R., who tested positive for benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine, during a UEFA Under-17 European Championship match between Croatia and the Netherlands. The initial disciplinary decision by UEFA imposed a one-year suspension, later reduced to eight months on appeal. R. challenged this decision and sought a provisional suspension of the sanction pending the final outcome of his appeal.
The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Jean-Pierre Karaquillo (President), Me Jean-Pierre Morand, and Me Denis Oswald, evaluated the request based on established jurisprudence. The panel emphasized that granting a provisional suspension requires assessing the risk of irreparable harm to the applicant, the likelihood of success in the main appeal, and the balance of interests between the parties. In doping cases, provisional suspensions are granted sparingly. However, the panel noted two decisive factors in this instance: the risk that R. would serve the entire suspension before a final decision was rendered and UEFA’s lack of opposition to the provisional suspension request.
R. argued that his appeal had merit, citing procedural errors in the handling of his case, including the refusal to consider additional evidence (such as a hair test) and the fact that he had already served over three months of the suspension, missing the Under-17 World Cup. UEFA did not oppose the provisional suspension, acknowledging the possibility that R. might complete his sanction before the CAS could issue a final ruling. The panel clarified that it could not review the UEFA Appeal Body’s refusal to grant a provisional suspension, as that decision was not under appeal. Instead, it focused on the objective circumstances of the case.
Ultimately, the CAS granted the provisional suspension, suspending the effects of UEFA’s decision until a final ruling was made. The order highlighted the exceptional nature of such measures in doping cases but justified its decision based on the risk of irreparable harm and the absence of opposition from UEFA. The case underscores the careful balance between enforcing anti-doping regulations and safeguarding athletes’ rights during the appeals process.