What was reviewed
On 22 December 2020 the Swiss Federal Tribunal decided Sun Yang’s application to revise the CAS 2019/A/6148 award of 28 February 2020. The Lausanne-seated international sports tribunal had imposed an eight-year suspension. The revision application concerned Twitter posts discovered after the award and the impartiality of its presiding arbitrator.
This was a separate extraordinary review procedure. The court addressed it first because success would remove the need to examine the numerous grounds raised in a parallel appeal. Section 4.2 explains the statutory gap then filled through case law and refers to the enacted Article 190a PILA, due to commence on 1 January 2021. The historical procedural deadlines must therefore not be transposed to present applications.
Reasonable, rather than unlimited, investigation
Section 6 confirms the need to raise known disqualification grounds promptly. An arbitrator’s general declaration of independence does not remove the party’s obligation to examine reasonably available information. At the same time, mere internet accessibility does not establish that a party should have found a particular item.
The court considered the age of some posts, the volume of messages and the absence of warning signs. It did not require parties to keep monitoring arbitrators’ social-media accounts throughout the proceedings. The conclusion depends on the actual investigation, timing and character of the information.
Why objectively justified doubts arose
Section 7 distinguishes an arbitrator’s freedom to defend personal convictions from the way those convictions are expressed. Repeated extreme statements referring to ethnicity and skin colour were decisive, including statements made after appointment to chair a case involving a Chinese athlete. Animal-welfare advocacy alone was not a disqualification ground.
The impartiality test did not require proof of an internal intention to decide unfairly. It asked whether established circumstances would create an objectively justified appearance of bias to a reasonable third party. A losing party’s subjective distrust does not suffice.
Disposition and limits
The operative part grants revision, annuls the arbitral award and disqualifies Franco Frattini. The Federal Tribunal did not redetermine the anti-doping merits. Section 4.1 explains that successful revision returns the dispute to arbitration, before a newly constituted tribunal where required.
The case concerns international sports arbitration and Swiss judicial supervision. It informs discussion of arbitrator selection and challenge, but does not establish a uniform worldwide duty to monitor social media.
General information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.