世界反兴奋剂机构的行踪规则与法律的冲突及限制
|
摘要
行踪规则与欧洲法中的隐私权、个人信息权和休息权的规定存在着明显的冲突。传统上,体育机构往往以其为民间组织、其与运动员之间系合同关系、抑或体育比赛是业余的等理由,回避法律对行踪规则的检讨。不过,这种做法是有法律风险的。为此,世界反兴奋剂机构通过强调比例原则,限制行踪规则的适用范围,从而在规范的层面上使该规则获得正当性。因此,行踪规则的实施违反了比例原则,运动员有权获得司法救济。然而,运动员需要向法院证明以下三点:行踪规则的正当性建立在比例原则的基础之上、已经造成了现实的损害、行踪规则的实施背离普适性的法律原则,比如责任主义原则。
The whereabouts rule is in conflict with the right to privacy,the right to personal information and the right to rest in European law. Conventionally,sports organizations avoid legal examination of whereabouts rule by claiming that they are non-governmental organizations,they are in contractual relationships with athletes or the sports games are amateur. However,this practice has legal risks. In order to resolve the conflict,WADC stresses the proportional principle and limits the scope of applying whereabouts rule,making the rule legitimatized in terms of legal norms. Therefore,the adoption of whereabouts rule violates the proportional principle and athletes can resort to the judicial assistance. However,athletes need to prove to the court the following three points: the legitimacy of whereabouts rule is based on the proportional principle,damages have occurred,and the adoption of whereabouts rule is against the legal principle of universality,such as principle of responsibility.
The whereabouts rule is in conflict with the right to privacy,the right to personal information and the right to rest in European law. Conventionally,sports organizations avoid legal examination of whereabouts rule by claiming that they are non-governmental organizations,they are in contractual relationships with athletes or the sports games are amateur. However,this practice has legal risks. In order to resolve the conflict,WADC stresses the proportional principle and limits the scope of applying whereabouts rule,making the rule legitimatized in terms of legal norms. Therefore,the adoption of whereabouts rule violates the proportional principle and athletes can resort to the judicial assistance. However,athletes need to prove to the court the following three points: the legitimacy of whereabouts rule is based on the proportional principle,damages have occurred,and the adoption of whereabouts rule is against the legal principle of universality,such as principle of responsibility.
引文
[1]SEE D A,RAM H,VIRET M,et al.The World Anti-Doping Code 2015:ASSER International Sports Law Blog symposium[J].The International Sports Law Journal,2016(16):99-117.
[2]SEE H J.Where is the Privacy in WADA's"Whereabouts"Rule?[J].Marquette Sports Law Review,2009(20):267-289.
[3]SEE G O,GRITHETC R.Anti-doping,purported rights to privacy and WADA's whereabouts requirements:A legal analysis[J].Fair Play,2013(1):13-38.
[4]SEEM J,PENDLEBURYA.Location,Location,Location:The Whereabouts Rule and the Right to Privacy[J].Cambrian L.Rev,2009(40):63-75.
[5]SEE C L.Global hybrid public-private bodies:the World AntiDoping Agency(WADA)[J].Organ Law Rev 2009(6):421-446.
[6]SEE M K.Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law[J].Yale L.J,1992(1):101.
[7]郑晓剑.比例原则在民法上的适用及展开[J].中国法学,2016(2):143-165.
[8]熊爱卿.美国、加拿大与台湾个人资料保护法相关案例之研究[J].山东科技大学学报(社会科学版),2011(2):65-72.
[9]OSCHUTZF.Harmonization of Anti-Doping Code Through Arbitration:The Case Law of the Court of Arbitration for Sport[J].Marquette Sports Law Revie,2002(12):675-702.
[10]DABSCHECK B.The Globe at Their Feet:FIFA's New Employment Rules-I[J].Sport in Society,2004(7):69-94.
[11]MATTHWW J,OPIE M H."Sports Law":Implications For The Development Of International,Comparative,And National Law And Global Dispute Resolution[J].Tulane Law Review,2010(85):173-222.
[12]MATTHWWJ M,DAVIS T.Athlete Eligibility Requirements and Legal Protection of Sports Participation Opportunities[J].Va.Sports&Ent.L.J,2009(8):71.
[13]SEE M J M.Judicial Review of Olympic and International Sports Arbitration Awards[J].Pepperdine Dispute Resolution L.J,2009(10):64-67.
[14]SEE M K F.The Court of Arbitration for Sport:Dealing with Doping and Due Process During the Olympics[J].Sports law jounal,2000(7):236.
[15]SEE M H P,WHITTOME C,The Status of Human Rights NGOs[J].Colum Hum Rts L Rbw,1994(25):276.
[16]SEE G J.The Olympic Binding Arbitration Clause and the Court of Arbitration for Sport:An Analysis of Due Process Concerns[J].Fordham Intell.Prop.Media&Ent.L.J,2008(18):1006.
[17]JAREBORG N.Criminalization as Last Resort(Ultima Ratio)[J].Ohio State Journal Of Criminal Law,2004(2):521-534.
[18]COHEN E M,PORAT I,American Balancing And German Proportionality:The Historical Origins[J].Int j Const Law,2010(8):263-286.
[19]SEE P R.The Birth of European Union Sports Law[J].Entertainment law,2003(2):21-39.
(1)See Drug Free Sport New Zealand v.Kris Gemmell,CAS 2014/A/2.
(1)See Copland v.United Kingdom(App.no 62617_00 ),ECHR 3 April 2007.
(1)See Walrave and Koch v Association Union Cycliste Internationale,C-36/74,R-36/74,[1974]EUECJ R-36/74,ECR 1405.
(2)See Edwards v British Athletic Federation,94(30)LSG 29(1997).
(3)See UEFA v.Bosman,E.C.R.1-04921,40(1995).
(4)Meca-Medina v.Comm'n of European Cmtys.,5 C.M.L.R.18,33-34(2006).
(1)Canas v.ATP Tour,4P.172/2006(2007)(Switz.),ATF 133 III 235.
(2)N.,J.,Y.,W.v.FINA,5P.83/1999(2d Civil Court,Mar.31,1999).
(1)Court of Arbitration for Sport,Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games,Art.17 available at http://www.tascas.org/adhoc-rules.
(2)See,Arbitration CAS 2004/A/704,Yang Tae Young v International Gymnastics Federation,award of 21 October 2004.
(3)Gatlin v.U.S.Anti-Doping Agency,Inc,2008 WL2567657(N.D.Fla.2008).
(1)See Pell v Walker(t/a The Media Group)(Bow County Court,3 Dec.)[1997].
[2]SEE H J.Where is the Privacy in WADA's"Whereabouts"Rule?[J].Marquette Sports Law Review,2009(20):267-289.
[3]SEE G O,GRITHETC R.Anti-doping,purported rights to privacy and WADA's whereabouts requirements:A legal analysis[J].Fair Play,2013(1):13-38.
[4]SEEM J,PENDLEBURYA.Location,Location,Location:The Whereabouts Rule and the Right to Privacy[J].Cambrian L.Rev,2009(40):63-75.
[5]SEE C L.Global hybrid public-private bodies:the World AntiDoping Agency(WADA)[J].Organ Law Rev 2009(6):421-446.
[6]SEE M K.Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law[J].Yale L.J,1992(1):101.
[7]郑晓剑.比例原则在民法上的适用及展开[J].中国法学,2016(2):143-165.
[8]熊爱卿.美国、加拿大与台湾个人资料保护法相关案例之研究[J].山东科技大学学报(社会科学版),2011(2):65-72.
[9]OSCHUTZF.Harmonization of Anti-Doping Code Through Arbitration:The Case Law of the Court of Arbitration for Sport[J].Marquette Sports Law Revie,2002(12):675-702.
[10]DABSCHECK B.The Globe at Their Feet:FIFA's New Employment Rules-I[J].Sport in Society,2004(7):69-94.
[11]MATTHWW J,OPIE M H."Sports Law":Implications For The Development Of International,Comparative,And National Law And Global Dispute Resolution[J].Tulane Law Review,2010(85):173-222.
[12]MATTHWWJ M,DAVIS T.Athlete Eligibility Requirements and Legal Protection of Sports Participation Opportunities[J].Va.Sports&Ent.L.J,2009(8):71.
[13]SEE M J M.Judicial Review of Olympic and International Sports Arbitration Awards[J].Pepperdine Dispute Resolution L.J,2009(10):64-67.
[14]SEE M K F.The Court of Arbitration for Sport:Dealing with Doping and Due Process During the Olympics[J].Sports law jounal,2000(7):236.
[15]SEE M H P,WHITTOME C,The Status of Human Rights NGOs[J].Colum Hum Rts L Rbw,1994(25):276.
[16]SEE G J.The Olympic Binding Arbitration Clause and the Court of Arbitration for Sport:An Analysis of Due Process Concerns[J].Fordham Intell.Prop.Media&Ent.L.J,2008(18):1006.
[17]JAREBORG N.Criminalization as Last Resort(Ultima Ratio)[J].Ohio State Journal Of Criminal Law,2004(2):521-534.
[18]COHEN E M,PORAT I,American Balancing And German Proportionality:The Historical Origins[J].Int j Const Law,2010(8):263-286.
[19]SEE P R.The Birth of European Union Sports Law[J].Entertainment law,2003(2):21-39.
(1)See Drug Free Sport New Zealand v.Kris Gemmell,CAS 2014/A/2.
(1)See Copland v.United Kingdom(App.no 62617_00 ),ECHR 3 April 2007.
(1)See Walrave and Koch v Association Union Cycliste Internationale,C-36/74,R-36/74,[1974]EUECJ R-36/74,ECR 1405.
(2)See Edwards v British Athletic Federation,94(30)LSG 29(1997).
(3)See UEFA v.Bosman,E.C.R.1-04921,40(1995).
(4)Meca-Medina v.Comm'n of European Cmtys.,5 C.M.L.R.18,33-34(2006).
(1)Canas v.ATP Tour,4P.172/2006(2007)(Switz.),ATF 133 III 235.
(2)N.,J.,Y.,W.v.FINA,5P.83/1999(2d Civil Court,Mar.31,1999).
(1)Court of Arbitration for Sport,Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games,Art.17 available at http://www.tascas.org/adhoc-rules.
(2)See,Arbitration CAS 2004/A/704,Yang Tae Young v International Gymnastics Federation,award of 21 October 2004.
(3)Gatlin v.U.S.Anti-Doping Agency,Inc,2008 WL2567657(N.D.Fla.2008).
(1)See Pell v Walker(t/a The Media Group)(Bow County Court,3 Dec.)[1997].