Ovidiu Miheț: “We have a team that, in addition to technical and professional attributes, also has an extraordinary quality: the human one.”

PRESS RELEASE

At the launch event of the Romanian Court of Arbitration for Sport, arbitrator av. Ovidiu Miheț expressed his opinion on the characteristics of the new private jurisdiction in sports law.

“When I think of sport, three or four attributes come to mind: 1. Dynamism, 2. Team spirit, 3. Fair play, 4. A healthy and natural competition. And I believe these attributes are also found in our Court. Dynamism – as our colleagues mentioned. We resolve a case in the time it takes a judicial court to barely set the first hearing date. My lawyer colleagues know this very well, and we all probably know it. Team spirit. I look around here and see we have an extraordinary team. We have among us, and I am particularly honored, some consummate professionals, people with an extraordinary professional background, active in the academic and educational field, with impeccable professional histories. I am truly honored to be part of this team. We have a team of people who, in addition to these technical and professional attributes, also possess an extraordinary quality – the human one. Exceptional moral integrity because justice is done by people, and if we forget the human element, we won’t be able to consider the athlete or their interest. Moving on to the next attribute – fair play. Yes, fair play, which must be found both in competitive activity and in the way disputes are resolved. What does fair play from the Court mean? Providing procedural guarantees, treating the person who comes before the Court with respect, a reasonable timeframe, and, why not, accessible fees, as my colleague mentioned.

And we reach the other attribute, which would be healthy competition. Without wanting to contradict Sabin, I believe our goal is not to relieve the judicial courts. I don’t want to relieve them; I want to enter into healthy competition with the judicial courts. Let’s not forget that, unfortunately, and I apologize to the colleagues who were judges, the duration of disputes in court is colossal. In sports law, an athlete can barely afford two disputes during their entire competitive career. By the time the second one is over, they retire from competition. It’s not acceptable. Well, maybe I was a bit harsh with two disputes; there are three, after all. So, what I am saying is that we have gathered here, we have established this entity, which constitutes a very viable alternative for resolving disputes, and ultimately, no matter how much we want to be initiators, to innovate something, we are not reinventing the wheel. We look at the model of more developed countries. There was talk about CAS, BAT, and other sports tribunals in civilized countries. I am glad this initiative has materialized, and I thank you immensely.”