NEWSLETTER-2019-metin

357 SPORTS LAW sufficiently abide by the right to be heard principle and dismissed the claims of the WADA. .and dismissed the claims of the WADA 7 . Excessive Formalism The WADA also argued that the CAS acted in an excessively formal manner by terminating the arbitration proceeding due to late payment, which is tantamount to violating Swiss public policy 8 . In this regard, the SFT further examined the question of whether the procedural public policy covers the prohibition of excessive formalism. The SFT left the answer to this question unclear due to absence of any applicable theory in the doctrine. On the other hand, the SFT noted that there was no need to discuss the issue since the CAS demonstrated no excessive formalism towards the WADA 9 . The SFT also stated that a judicial body should strictly apply its own rules. It was finally acknowledged that accepting the claim of the WADA would possibly encourage misconduct, and render Article R64.2 of the CAS Code meaningless. Conclusion It is clear that the parties of a dispute handled by the CAS should give the utmost attention to deadlines and the instructions of the panel and the CAS Court Office. As it is prescribed by the SFT, in the event of a delay in the payment of advance costs, the delayed party will face termination of the proceeding regardless of the reason for the delay. Parties before the CAS are strongly recommended to seek an exten- sion for the time limit in which to pay advance costs. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that the CAS is not obliged to grant the parties such extension to the time limit for payment of advance costs. As a result, the most reasonable act of the Parties would be to strictly follow the procedural rules and instructions given by the CAS. 7 Ibid. 8 Formalism is typically considered excessive when interest worthy of protection does not justify strict application of the rules, and unsustainably complicates the application of substantive law, or restricts access to the courts. 9 Please see 4A_600/2008: The SFT similarly concluded in another case of late payment of advance costs, and this procedure was also brought before the CAS.