Tweet
Some of you may remember how poorly this event was organized. Jean-Paul Touzé of France was in charge but ultimately FIDE was responsable. In my mind, FIDE was negligent in not making sure that Touzé could actually pull off a first class event...they simply assumed he could...and when they started having doubts...it was too late.
Anyway, after the event, FIDE sanctioned Touzé from organizing FIDE events for 5 years (which I believe was later reduced to 3 years). Touzé then took FIDE to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. They recently concluded that although Touzé had not proved that the sanction against him has caused him financial loss and must therefore be rejected, the costs of appearing before the arbitration board would be born 80% by FIDE and 20% by Touzé. Here are the key paragraphs of the decision which was handed down at the end of July (Full document is at fide.com)
85. It is clear that in deciding to issue a formal decision against Mr Jean-Paul
Touzé and publish this on its website, FIDE took steps which gave rise to this
case, which has resulted in almost 4 years of exchanges of documents,
questions and legal proceedings. The question can of course be raised as to
whether this publicity was justified, which was probably intended to pacify the delegations who were disappointed by the way the Championship was
organised.
86. This long and laborious legal dispute could have been avoided if FIDE had
immediately clarified any ambiguity after the initial intervention by Mr Jean-
Paul Touzé, who only attempted to exercise his right to let his side of the story be heard, which FIDE seemed willing to allow, while in fact it put obstacles in the way of this. In fact, it invited Mr Jean-Paul Touzé to present his case to the Ethics Commission, which never replied to him and which proved to beincompetent. In the extension of this case, CAS 2006/A/1163 Mr Jean-Paul Touzé versus FIDE, the appellant requested the Respondent on 16 November2007 to allow him to address the next General Assembly. In a reply, on 14November 2008, he was only invited to attend the next General Assemblywith 10 days’ notice, and it was to be held in Germany, which made it impossible for him to prepare his defence properly.
87. In view of the facts considered above, and even though this appeal must be rejected, 80% of the costs of these arbitration proceedings shall be paid by FIDE and 20% by Mr Jean-Paul Touzé. The final account of the costs of these proceedings will be prepared by the Court Office of the CAS and sent to the parties later.
88. In accordance with Article R64.5 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration and or the reasons explained above, each party will pay its own costs.
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport CAS 2009/A/1762 Jean-Paul Touzé versus FIDE 21
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Anyway, after the event, FIDE sanctioned Touzé from organizing FIDE events for 5 years (which I believe was later reduced to 3 years). Touzé then took FIDE to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. They recently concluded that although Touzé had not proved that the sanction against him has caused him financial loss and must therefore be rejected, the costs of appearing before the arbitration board would be born 80% by FIDE and 20% by Touzé. Here are the key paragraphs of the decision which was handed down at the end of July (Full document is at fide.com)
85. It is clear that in deciding to issue a formal decision against Mr Jean-Paul
Touzé and publish this on its website, FIDE took steps which gave rise to this
case, which has resulted in almost 4 years of exchanges of documents,
questions and legal proceedings. The question can of course be raised as to
whether this publicity was justified, which was probably intended to pacify the delegations who were disappointed by the way the Championship was
organised.
86. This long and laborious legal dispute could have been avoided if FIDE had
immediately clarified any ambiguity after the initial intervention by Mr Jean-
Paul Touzé, who only attempted to exercise his right to let his side of the story be heard, which FIDE seemed willing to allow, while in fact it put obstacles in the way of this. In fact, it invited Mr Jean-Paul Touzé to present his case to the Ethics Commission, which never replied to him and which proved to beincompetent. In the extension of this case, CAS 2006/A/1163 Mr Jean-Paul Touzé versus FIDE, the appellant requested the Respondent on 16 November2007 to allow him to address the next General Assembly. In a reply, on 14November 2008, he was only invited to attend the next General Assemblywith 10 days’ notice, and it was to be held in Germany, which made it impossible for him to prepare his defence properly.
87. In view of the facts considered above, and even though this appeal must be rejected, 80% of the costs of these arbitration proceedings shall be paid by FIDE and 20% by Mr Jean-Paul Touzé. The final account of the costs of these proceedings will be prepared by the Court Office of the CAS and sent to the parties later.
88. In accordance with Article R64.5 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration and or the reasons explained above, each party will pay its own costs.
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport CAS 2009/A/1762 Jean-Paul Touzé versus FIDE 21
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Comment