析論國際運動仲裁院與運動員自由權利限制之法律議題－由運動禁藥管制規範影響運動員參賽案例出發

A brief analysis of Court of Arbitration for Sport and Athletes' rights: By case of Claudia Pechstein

10.6222/pej.202212_55(4).0005

陳宏志(Hung-Chih Chen)

運動爭議 ； 民間團體 ； 運動禁藥管制 ； 一般行為自由 ； 職業自由 ； sports dispute ； NGO ； anti-doping ； general behavior freedom ； freedom to choose career

體育學報

55卷4期（2022 / 12 / 01）

403 - 413

繁體中文;英文

緒論：國際運動仲裁院（CAS）自1984年開始運作後，已成為解決運動爭議之主要方式，如處理違反運動禁藥管制、參賽資格及裁判判決之項目。方法：本文先透過奧運、帕運規範與近期新聞，以及德國Claudia Pechstein案件之研析，掌握該爭端解決機制之運作與其權源。另因於中華奧會或其他運動組織為民間團體，透過渠等規範與CAS仲裁，如已限制或影響運動員參賽，其適法性為何？結果：經研析文獻與司法實務發現，透過奧林匹克憲章或IPC Handbook適用CAS，並透過此一連結搭配運動仲裁規則，有利於解決運動爭議及保障權利。然在我國，無論是國民體育法或運動禁藥管制辦法，對於運動員自由權利之限制，特別是運動禁藥管制規範，與民間團體有無受託行使公權力，皆未明文。結論：本文建議主管機關對於運動員之自由權利，應更予重視。必要時，可透過修法或其他方式予以完備。

Introduction: Since 1984, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has been established to resolve international sports-related disputes. Sports-related disputes can be categorized as disputes relating to the execution of contracts, such as those related to sponsorships and the sale of television rights, or disputes submitted to the CAS, many of which are doping-related. All Olympic International Federations and many National Olympic Committees have recognized the jurisdiction of the CAS and have included arbitration clauses in their statutes that refer disputes to the CAS. Since the World Conference on Doping in Sport in March 2003, the Olympic Movement and numerous governments have promulgated the World Anti-Doping Code, Article 13 of which states that CAS is the appeals body for all international doping-related disputes. Methods: According to the decisions on doping related disputes made by the CAS, some of the involved athletes were suspended for few years, which would be deem as restrictions to the athletes' rights and freedom. Also, all Olympic International Federations are NGOs, including the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee and the Chinese Taipei Anti-Doping Agency. From a legal perspective, the enforcement of anti-doping rules through CAS decision, such as the case of Claudia Pechstein, relies on a private relationship between the CAS and NGOs. Under Taiwan's legislative framework, if athletes' rights are being restricted by anti-doping rules, is it appropriate to rely on a private relationship to restrict their rights, or should relevant laws and regulations be established? Results: Anti-doping rules are critical in both domestic and international sports contests. To understand the current practices, the roles of the International Olympic Committee, International Paralympic Committee, World Anti-Doping Agency, Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee, and Chinese Taipei Anti-Doping Agency in the implementation of the anti-doping codes and practices warrant further discussion. Conclusion: This article presents relevant research and analysis of current discussions to provide recommendations to competent authorities.

1. 何念修, N.-H.,陳宏志, H.-C.(2022)。私法關係下的公共利益與隱私保護：解析運動禁藥管制的行蹤報告制度。中華體育季刊，36(1)，83-92。
   連結：
2. 陳宏志, H.-C.(2021)。由世界運動禁藥管制規範分析個人資料跨境傳輸與委託行使公權力之法律議題。大專體育，159，44-54。
   連結：
3. 黃郁婷, Y.-T.,湯添進, T.-C.(2015)。世界運動禁藥管制機構（WADA）之權力探源。中華體育季刊，29(2)，161-170。
   連結：
4. Anderson, J.(Ed.)(2013).Leading cases in sports law.TMC Asser Press.
5. CAS (2022b, n.d.). History of the CAS. Retrieved Nov. 10, 2022, form https://www.tascas.org/en/general-information/history-of-the-cas.html
6. CAS (2022a, n.d.). Arbitration Rules applicable to the CAS ad hoc division for the Olympic Games. Retrieved Nov. 10, 2022, form https://www.tas-cas.org/en/arbitration/ad-hoc-division.html
7. IPC (2022b, March 3). IPC to decline athlete entries from RPC and NPC Belarus for Beijing 2022. https://www.paralympic.org/news/ipc-decline-athlete-entries-rpc-andnpc-belarus-beijing-2022
8. IPC (2022d, n.d.). World Para Athletics Rules and Regulations 2020 - 2021 (amended on 24 February 2021). Retrieved Nov. 10, 2022, form https://www.paralympic.org/athletics/rules
9. IPC (2022c, n.d.). IPC Handbook. Retrieved Nov. 10, 2022, form https://www.paralympic.org/ipc-handbook
10. IPC (2022a, March 2). IPC makes decisions regarding RPC and NPC Belarus. https://www.paralympic.org/pressrelease/ipc-makes-decisions-regarding-rpc-and-npc-belarus
11. Lindholm, J.(2021).A legit supreme court of world sports? The CAS (e) for reform.The International Sports Law Journal,21(1),1-5.
12. Wekesa, M.(2018).The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS): Its relevance to Kenya after Pechstein?.The International Sports Law Journal,18(1),46-60.
13. 中華奧林匹克委員會 (2018，無日期)。運動員權利與責任宣言。擷取於 11 月 10 日 2022年，https://www.tpenoc.net/the-atheletes-declaration/。[Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee. (2018, n.d.). The athletes’ rights and responsibilities declaration. Retrieved Nov. 10, 2022, from https://www.tpenoc.net/theatheletes-declaration/]
14. 王建臺, J.-T.,許義雄, Y.-H.(1992)。國民運動權利之探討—以憲法中人民權利之內涵為析論中心。體育學報，14，61-70。
15. 呂進仁, J.-R.(2014)。瞭解國際體育仲裁院。仲裁報季刊，19，3。
16. 李復甸 (2022，2 月 22 日)。政府可以處罰國手嗎？中時新聞網。https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20220222000528-260109?chdtv [Li, F.-D. (2022, February 22). Could the government punish national champions? Chinatimes, https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20220222000528-260109?chdtv]
17. 財團法人中華運動禁藥防制基金會 (2021b，無日期)。藥管法規。擷取於 11 月 10 日2022 年，https://www.antidoping.org.tw/regulations/[Chinese Taipei Anti-Doping Agency. (2021b, n.d.). Anti-doping regulations. Retrieved Nov. 10, 2022, from https://www.antidoping. org.tw/en/regulations/]
18. 財團法人中華運動禁藥防制基金會 (2021a，無日期)。關於我們。擷取於 11 月 10 日2022 年，https://www.antidoping.org.tw/organization/[Chinese Taipei Anti-Doping Agency. (2021a, n.d.). About us. Retrieved Nov. 10, 2022, from https://www.antidoping.org.tw/en/organization/]
19. 高啟中, C.-C.(2011)。國際運動仲裁法院仲裁程序之探討。興大法學，10，103-126。
20. 張永明, Y.-M.(2018)。一般行為自由與一般人格權作為憲法保障之基本權。月旦法學雜誌，273，28-46。
21. 教育部體育署 (2022，3 月 3 日)。黃郁婷選手備戰及參賽北京冬奧期間言行失當體育署停止補助 2 年經費。教育部體育署。https://www.sa.gov.tw/News/NewsDetail?Type=3&id=3625&n=92 [Sports Administration (2022 , March 3). Huang Yu-Ting to be canceled 2 years of grant over uniform controversy in period of Winter Olympics events in Beijing. Sports Administration, Ministry of Education. https://www.sa.gov.tw/News/NewsDetail?Type=3&id=3625&n=92]
22. 許宗力, T.-L.(2003)。基本權利：第五講基本權利的第三人效力與國庫效力。月旦法學教室，9，64-73。
23. 郭樹理, S.-L.(2004)。CAS 體育仲裁若干問題探討。比較法研究，18(5)，132-144。
24. 陳耀祥, Y.-H.(2018)。論運動與憲法－德國運動概念入憲倡議之啟示。全國律師，22(12)，5-15。
25. 黃啟煌, C.-H.(2021)。國家運動禁藥機構之角色與世界運動禁藥管制趨勢。國民體育季刊，50(3)，69-73。
26. 楊崇森, C.-S.(2016)。運動爭議仲裁與相關機構－尤其以運動仲裁法院之運作為中心。仲裁季刊，103，96-129。
27. 蔡晶瑩, C.-Y.(2007)。公序良俗條款在國際私法中之發展與適用－以德國法作為探討之重心。政大法學評論，97，267-310。

1. (2024)。由中國體育法修正談臺灣運動禁藥管制之精進。大專體育，166，1-8。