Comfortable Satisfaction Before the Court of Arbitration for Sport: Consistency Despite Differences?

Abstract

The Court of Arbitration for Sport’s privileged position lends considerable authority to its adjudication practice, which gives rise to a number of principles that are subsequently adopted into general applica-tion. One of these principles is the standard of proof referred to as “comfortable satisfaction”. Howe-ver, its application raises several theoretical and practical issues. An analysis of publicly available awards shows that there are different approaches to this standard across arbitral panels, which, in the eyes of theory, considerably affect the process of evidence. This contribution therefore seeks to present these different approaches against the backdrop of an analysis of available awards and academic deba-tes, and to answer the question of whether these differences, translated into practice, cause inconsis-tencies within decision-making practice.