## Facts

- Claudia Pechstein, a German professional speed skater, sought entry into the 2009 World Speed Skating Championships.
- The International Skating Union (ISU), the sole international federation for top-level speed skating competitions, required athletes to sign a standard entry form to participate.
- The form required compliance with ISU anti-doping rules and contained an exclusive arbitration clause designating the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne as the forum and excluding litigation in ordinary courts.
- Blood testing during the championships showed elevated reticulocyte counts; the ISU disciplinary commission treated this as an anti-doping violation and imposed a two-year competition ban.
- Pechstein appealed to CAS; CAS upheld the ban.
- Pechstein sought to set aside the CAS award before the Swiss Federal Tribunal; the challenge was rejected.
- Pechstein then filed a civil action in Germany seeking damages and compensation for pain and suffering, asserting the ban was unjustified.
- The trial court dismissed the action as inadmissible due to the CAS arbitration agreement; the Munich appellate court held the clause invalid and treated the ISU requirement as an abuse of dominance; the ISU obtained review before the Federal Court of Justice (BGH).

## Issues

1. Whether CAS qualifies as an arbitral tribunal under German arbitration law such that a CAS arbitration clause bars proceedings in German state courts.
2. Whether an international sports federation with a monopoly over elite competitions abuses a dominant position by conditioning competition entry on acceptance of exclusive CAS arbitration.
3. Whether enforcing the CAS arbitration clause violates athletes’ rights to effective judicial protection, occupational freedom, or a fair hearing.

## Decision

- The BGH reversed the Munich appellate judgment and reinstated dismissal of Pechstein’s German damages action as inadmissible.
- The BGH held CAS is an arbitral tribunal for purposes of German arbitration law, and the clause validly excluded ordinary court proceedings.
- The BGH recognized the ISU’s dominant position in the market for access to international speed-skating competitions but held that requiring CAS arbitration as a participation condition was objectively justified and not abusive.
- The BGH rejected challenges based on lack of voluntariness and due-process concerns, citing procedural safeguards in CAS arbitration and limited judicial review by the Swiss Federal Tribunal.

## Legal Principles

- An institutional sports arbitration body can qualify as an arbitral tribunal under arbitration statutes, making a valid arbitration agreement a bar to domestic court jurisdiction.
- A “one-place” international sports federation may be dominant because athletes lack realistic alternatives for participation in elite competitions.
- Conditioning participation on acceptance of standardized CAS arbitration is not, without more, an abuse of dominance where the arrangement is justified by legitimate needs for uniform, specialized, and prompt dispute resolution and the procedure provides adequate guarantees of independence, impartiality, and reviewability.
- An arbitration agreement signed under substantial economic pressure may still be enforceable when the arbitral process provides sufficient procedural protections and does not unacceptably impair access to justice or fair-hearing rights.

## Conclusion

The BGH enforced the ISU’s mandatory CAS arbitration clause, treating CAS as a proper arbitral tribunal and holding that the ISU’s monopoly power did not render the clause abusive or unconstitutional given the perceived safeguards and limited external judicial review.


Pechstein v. Int’l Skating Union, Case No. KZR 6/15 (BGH 2016)