Ages back. Lawyer Karine Bechet-Golovko, Doctor of Public Law, University of Montpellier (France) - the decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne

From a legal standpoint, the decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, if we proceed from the fact that it has still some relation to the law, it is remarkable in two respects.

First X, CAS bent toward the same principle of collective responsibility, which Western society has refused ever since the Revolution française, and declined as more recently appeared, finally and irrevocably. The great achievement of the modern rule of thumb is that any liability can only be personal (personal). Whatever behaved your environment (neighbors, family members, community, colleagues, etc.), if you do not personally violated, then the responsibility can not be. Any kind of “esprit de corps” and “community responsibility” thing of the past, along with the Middle Ages. Now the Middle Ages comes back. Is it only in the sphere of sport, where the sportsman, as we have learned to be responsible, regardless of their personal behavior? We will see. Room for maneuver is wide. Expect all possible.

Second, Arbitration for Sport decision is interesting in terms of the emergence of a new phenomenon of Procedure. It would seem that everyone knows: to accuse someone of something we must formulate a personal accusation, articulate it, to rebut the presumption of innocence, to provide evidence and give them the right to deny, etc., etc. In general, a justice on the “market places” is not is decided.

But there are new technologies. They are adorable. Instead of “market justice” appeared “mediapravosudie”. You can not imagine comprehensible evidence and carry them through the prism of the trial? Nothing wrong. Who prevents a journalist, not bound by any procedural limitations, personally speak only with those with whom he sees fit? He is not obliged to conduct an interview while in accordance with the procedural rules. As a result of the release of “accusatory interview.” And this is the “proof” you can touch, it has the output data, issue of the newspaper (very influential - as without it?) Page. Or, for example, a TV program, documentary (any shadow hint …). But a newspaper article or a documentary - it is something tangible. Based on this “evidence” is created “Commission”. It also does not constitute an official investigation and any rigid procedural rules - such as the right to defense - not connected: who wants to - asking someone does not want to - do not ask, do not introduce a case materials, the right to protection does not provide. But the result of the commission’s work becomes a “report”. This is serious “proof”, there are a lot of pages. Based on the “report” has been held for a legal hearing. In general, the first article or TV program - and then report, and then … and sentence. At some point, you get the feeling that you have not given any chance to protect, not even given a chance to explain? It remains unclear. That’s the meaning of technology. But the train has left. You are brought to justice.

Yet these techniques are effective only in certain areas, for example in sport. No more or less serious Western court would not accept them. It will require the same Rodchenkova call directly to the court, the Russian side will give the right to ask questions, discuss, whether the witness personal interest, etc. In addition, it will consider charges against each specific athlete or official (ie individually) and not against the Russian sports in general, (Russian sports in general can not legally be the subject of responsibility, as well as Russian culture and Russian literature). But a sports court acted differently. This beginning of a trend or an “isolated case”? It is not clear.

That said, for the alleged European (and not only European) release the lawyer only two: either to consider took place in Lausanne events through the prism of modern law, which now turns out to have a lot of the latest trends: the collective responsibility and the lack of rights of the defense, and article in “Pravda” (pardon, in the New York Times) instead of evidence; either consider that the Court of Arbitration for Sport to the law has nothing to do with it, as it were brought forth the issue of the right bracket (a kind of “Guantanamo method”).

Which events evaluate the options you like best? I do not like either - both are equally damaging to Western society in the long term. Principle à la guerre comme à la guerre not always successful when it comes to fundamentals, one of which is right.

Author - Doctor of Public Law, University of Montpellier (France), visiting professor at Moscow State University. MV Lomonosov

22 July 2016

Novosibirsk Mayor’s Office accused of inaction in the resettlement of emergency housing
Law: Equality producer and seller in the buyer’s interests

• Saratov court ruled on the lawsuit against Vladimir Putin »»»
The Arbitration Court of the Saratov region dismissed the case on the suit Nikolay Suvorov against Russian President Vladimir Putin.
• The court ordered the company Oracle to reduce the number of claims for Google from 132 to 3 »»»
In the Java-related proceedings between Google and Oracle marked a major shift - the court ordered an Oracle to reduce the number appearing in the claims from 132 to 3.
• In the Netherlands, on the eve of the referendum will show the series of Ukrainian corruption »»»
Western media continue to show the essence of the Ukrainian
• Networking justice: the law or the court of the crowd? »»»
Under public pressure, the court replaced the head of Nizhni
• Russian language has official status in the Ukrainian Justice »»»
President of Ukraine Victor Yanukovich signed the Law of Ukraine “On the Judicial System and Status of Judges adopted by parliament on July 7, 2010.