petitions to set aside arbitral awards). Subsequently, Pechstein applied to the German courts and obtained a judgment from the Higher Regional Court of Munich declaring the arbitration agreement invalid and, consequently, the 2009 CAS decision as inapplicable in Germany. The German court held that Pechstein was forced to sign the Athlete Agreement containing the arbitration agreement, as she otherwise would not have been in a position to compete (see Legal update, Higher Regional Court of Munich decides that arbitration agreements for athletes are invalid and CAS Arbitral Award is not enforceable). However, the German Supreme Court overturned this decision, holding that generally athletes were free to sign the Athlete Agreement (see Legal update, German Federal Court of Justice finds that CAS arbitration agreements are valid). The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) proceedings In July and November 2010, respectively, Mutu and Pechstein applied to the ECHR both alleging violations of their right to a fair trial in Switzerland, relying on Article 6(1) of the Convention. In both cases, they argued that the CAS could not be regarded as an independent and impartial tribunal. In the case of Mutu, it was argued that one arbitrator lacked impartiality because of his prior involvement and, in the case of Pechstein, that she was denied a public hearing. Finally, relying on Article 4(1) (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mutu objected to the amount of damages that he had been ordered to pay. In December 2016, the ECHR joined the two cases. Decision The ECHR held that there had been no violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention with regard to a lack of independence and impartiality of the CAS. However, the ECHR did hold that the non-public nature of the proceedings before the CAS was, in fact, a violation of the right to a fair trial granted under Article 6(1) of the Convention (as argued by Pechstein). All other allegations were dismissed. Competence of the ECHR The ECHR analysed, amongst other things, whether it was competent to hear the applications brought before it, given that the CAS is neither a state court, nor another public Swiss state entity, but a privately-owned institution. The ECHR confirmed that a state may be liable under the Convention if the authorities of that state formally or tacitly approve acts of private individuals, which violate another individual's rights guaranteed under the Convention. Moreover, in these particular cases, the Swiss Supreme Court was competent to hear challenges to the CAS decisions and in fact rejected both applications to set aside. By doing so, the Swiss Supreme Court gave res judicata effect to the CAS decisions within the Swiss legal system. Therefore, the ECHR held that it was competent to hear the applications against Switzerland. Right to a fair trial (independent and impartial tribunal) The ECHR examined the compatibility of arbitral tribunals with the "right to a court" under Article 6(1) of the Convention (of which the right to access a court only constitutes an aspect). It reiterated that the such a right can, under certain circumstances, be limited. In particular, Article 6 does not preclude the existence of arbitral tribunals. According to the ECHR, such tribunals have undeniable advantages for the parties concerned and for the administration of justice so that contractual arbitration clauses do not, in principle, conflict with the Convention. The ECHR then drew a distinction between compulsory and voluntary arbitration. In compulsory arbitration, that is, proceedings imposed by law which deprive parties of their right to submit their dispute to a state court, all guarantees provided for in Article 6(1) of the Convention must be safeguarded. In voluntary