Limited CAS Review Upheld: Europe’s Stance Confirmed
- Sloka Vineetha Chandra
- 6 days ago
- 6 min read
The International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) has officially welcomed the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) judgment in Royal Football Club Seraing v. FIFA et al. (Case C-600/23), clarifying that national courts within the EU may review Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) awards only on grounds of EU public policy. Delivered on 1 August 2025, the decision cements the balance between judicial oversight and the autonomy of sports arbitration, reaffirming CAS’s role as the world’s pre-eminent forum for resolving athletic disputes.
CAS and ICAS: Guardians of Sporting Dispute Resolution
Since its inception in 1984, the CAS has served as the arbitration arm of the International Council of Arbitration for Sport, resolving more than 3,000 disputes across the globe. ICAS, based at the Palais de Beaulieu in Lausanne, oversees CAS’s governance, ensures procedural integrity, and safeguards arbitral awards from undue interference.
All CAS awards are subject to a single judicial instance before the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT), Switzerland’s highest court. Historically, only about 6 percent of CAS decisions are appealed to the SFT each year, underscoring widespread acceptance of CAS’s fact-finding and legal analysis by state judiciaries.
The Road to Seraing: From Lausanne to Luxembourg
RFC Seraing’s saga began in 2016 when the Belgian club challenged a disciplinary measure in CAS. After the tribunal dismissed its claim, Seraing lodged an appeal with the SFT in 2017. The Federal Tribunal upheld the CAS award, but Seraing persisted, bringing the matter before Belgium’s Court of Cassation. In turn, that court referred the question to the CJEU: Can state courts in the EU subject a foreign arbitral award to full judicial review simply because it originated outside the EU?
The Court of Justice held that national courts in the EU must be empowered to carry out an in-depth judicial review of arbitral awards made by the CAS to ensure they comply with EU public policy and fundamental rights. It ruled that any national legislation or sports-association rules preventing such review must be inapplicable, and that the authority of res judicata cannot bar scrutiny simply because the award originated outside the EU.
In January 2025, Advocate General Athanasios Rantos Capeta proposed an expansive approach, urging that CAS awards be fully reviewable by national courts to ensure compliance with all facets of EU law. That opinion sparked intense debate within legal circles, pitting EU integrationists against defenders of specialized sport arbitration.
CJEU’s Decision: “Public Policy” as the Sole Gateway
On 1 August 2025, the CJEU issued its judgment, aligning with the more restrained line of prior jurisprudence. The court held that national courts may only review CAS awards on grounds of EU public policy; essentially, fundamental principles that no EU member state may derogate from, such as procedural fairness, non-discrimination, and competition law prohibitions.
This outcome reaffirms the structure of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, to which the EU and its member states are signatories. Under Article V(2)(b) of the Convention, public policy is the sole exception permitting refusal to uphold foreign arbitral decisions.
EU Public Policy: Scope and Boundaries
“EU public policy” encompasses only those mandatory norms originating from EU primary and secondary law that reflect the Union’s constitutional identity. These typically include, a) fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, b) EU competition rules prohibiting cartels, abuse of dominance, and anti-competitive agreements; and c) Procedural safeguards essential to a fair hearing, such as the right to be heard and to equal treatment.
National courts cannot examine CAS awards on routine contract interpretation, sporting regulations, or disciplinary guidelines unless a clear breach of EU public policy is alleged. This narrow scope preserves the finality of sports arbitration while upholding EU law’s core values.
The CJEU decision explicitly acknowledges that sports arbitration constitutes a “legitimate mechanism ensuring a uniform treatment of sporting disputes and a consistent application of sporting rules.” By doing so, the court ensures that athletes, clubs, and federations can rely on CAS’s specialized expertise without fear of arbitrary domestic interference.
ICAS Director General Matthieu Reeb praised the judgment, noting: “We observe that the CJEU did not follow the Advocate General’s opinion in full and confirmed that EU state courts’ potential review of CAS awards is limited to EU public policy. CAS remains committed to providing timely and expert dispute resolution worldwide.”
EU Competition Law and CAS: A Special Case
Court of Arbitration for Sport proceedings traditionally focus on contractual disputes, disciplinary sanctions, and eligibility questions under Swiss law. Competition law issues were largely seen as outside this private arbitration framework, until the CJEU stepped in.
In International Skating Union v. European Commission (Case C-124/21), the Commission challenged ISU’s eligibility rules for timekeeping services, alleging they constituted a concerted practice under Article 101. The CJEU held that national courts must scrutinize such rules against EU antitrust standards and may disregard them if they lack objective justification or proportionate safeguards. Crucially, the judgment did not convert every sporting regulation into a competition law matter but carved out a clear exception: where a rule has a direct and immediate effect on trade between Member States, it falls within EU law’s reach.
Building on this foundation, the new CJEU pronouncement extends to CAS awards themselves. When an arbitral tribunal addresses the validity or application of a sporting rule under competition law, the resulting award may be set aside or refused recognition if it conflicts with Articles 101 or 102 TFEU. However, the scope of review remains tightly confined to antitrust compliance. CAS cannot be turned into a mini-competition court for re-litigation of every contractual term or disciplinary dictum; only those elements that collide with EU public policy on competition are open to judicial second-guessing.
For parties challenging sporting regulations, this dual-track system offers greater flexibility but also requires strategic framing. A claimant who embeds competition law arguments in a CAS request for arbitration retains the standard procedural benefits; confidentiality, expedited timelines, expert arbitrators, but must be prepared for possible collateral review in domestic courts. Conversely, initiating proceedings in national or EU courts invites a full competition law inquiry but sacrifices CAS’s specialized forum. Successfully navigating these options demands careful drafting of submissions to invoke the public policy exception without opening the door to wider judicial interference.
Implications for Stakeholders
Athletes and Clubs gain reassurance that CAS awards will stand, barring fundamental conflicts with EU core values.
National Courts receive a clear mandate: respect CAS’s autonomy and expertise, intervening only when awards clash with EU public policy.
Sports Governing Bodies can continue to adopt unified rules, confident they will not be unwound by national tribunals except in exceptional circumstances.
Legal Practitioners must sharpen their pleadings, focusing on pinpointing specific EU policy breaches rather than re-litigating factual or technical disputes.
Charting the Future of Sports Arbitration
The CJEU’s decision arrives at a critical juncture. Sports arbitration faces mounting pressure from globalization, digitalization of competitions, and evolving standards of procedural fairness. By delineating the boundary between sports governance and public oversight, the judgment ensures that by subjecting CAS awards that touch on competition law to a targeted CJEU review, the Court not only reinforces CAS’s global credibility as an independent tribunal but also aligns European procedural norms with the tried-and-tested principles of international arbitration. This synergy ensures that sporting disputes are decided under a coherent legal framework that respects both EU public policy on antitrust and the autonomy of arbitral proceedings. In turn, athletes, clubs, and commercial partners benefit from greater legal predictability: they can chart their courses through cross-border challenges with a clear understanding of when and how competition rules will be applied, whether in CAS or in national courts.
As major events like the 2026 UEFA European Championship and the 2028 Olympic Games loom, stakeholders can proceed with confidence that disputes will be resolved efficiently, consistently, and within the framework of EU legal order.
Conclusion
The CJEU’s ruling in Seraing v. FIFA et al. marks a defining moment for international sports law. By affirming that CAS awards are only reviewable on EU public policy grounds, the court has struck a delicate balance; upholding essential Union values without undermining the specialized dispute-resolution mechanisms that underpin global sport. ICAS’s prompt acknowledgement of the judgment underscores its ongoing stewardship of CAS’s integrity and mission.
Moreover, this decision provides much-needed clarity for federations and athletes alike, outlining clear parameters for future challenges and reinforcing the importance of drafting regulations that can withstand both arbitral scrutiny and public policy review. As sports organizations navigate increasingly complex commercial landscapes, the Seraing ruling stands as a guiding precedent, ensuring that innovation and regulatory autonomy coexist with fundamental competition safeguards.
Authored By: Archit Vyas is a lawyer and an advocate with expertise in sports law.
Edited By: Souniya Dhuldhoya
Yorumlar