The core of our study is the analysis of gender inequality in sports arbitration, in particular the rules for appointment of CAS arbitrators. The authors’ standpoint is that while reviewing decisions taken by sports governing bodies, CAS performs regulatory functions that go beyond private law dispute settlement. However, not only recent research shows that the lack of women representation among CAS arbitrators is more concerning than in other international courts and tribunals, but also that these women were appointed less times in comparison with male arbitrators. Additionally, a significant share of the appointments was given to the same female arbitrators. The first proposal we put forward to reform the current appointment system of CAS arbitrators addresses the possibility of increasing the share of women panel presidents. Second, we propose abolishing party-appointments in sports arbitration.
Unlike other European legal orders, Portugal does not have an Infectious Diseases Protection Act in force specifically tailored to enable the approval of administrative measures by the executive during a pandemic. Instead, the legislative framework in this regard is thinner, consisting of atomistic norms contained in the Health Framework Law, the Civil Protection Framework Law, and the Public Health Surveillance Act. During the COVID19 pandemic crisis, the Portuguese Government approved a set of limitations to fundamental rights via administrative regulations based on such legal norms. Their constitutionality – more specifically, their legality – was many times contested in the Supreme Administrative Court via fundamental rights injunctions and interim relief requests. This paper analyses the case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court in these matters.
It is by now evident that the COVID-19 pandemic posed new challenges to the foundations of Public Law, namely to the rule of law and separation of powers. Although the use of emergency powers by the Executive is not new to constitutional theory, in Portugal during these last two years the Government became the leading legislator in what concerns restrictions of fundamental rights. This provides food for thought concerning the extent and oversight of executive rule-making powers.
Through an analysis of some relevant constitutional case-law, this paper aims to understand how the specific constitutional framework regarding fundamental rights restrictions as well as the measures adopted to contain the spread of Covid-19 (such as stay-at-home measures, curfews or social distancing) led the country to a fall from the category of 'fully democratic country' to 'democracy with flaws.', according to The Economist’s Democracy Index 2020 and 2021 editions.