CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 6 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8780D7B2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC08D0465 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .s2AF14A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:6pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s25F5CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .sD3A9FB41 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4D43C76D { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:59.69pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:4.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD62BB3FA { width:7.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s507990D1 { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CB9BE2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3BD36361 { font-family:Arial; color:#00b050 } .s9804041A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7B868B6A { width:9.85pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s6F863F49 { width:6.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE90BF664 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s31FAC864 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s264C04A0 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s95770030 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8FBB5171 { width:17.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sCFE21915 { width:130.42pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF993D337 { width:25.88pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF78227B2 { width:156.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } SECOND SECTION CASE OF ALTINER AKINCI v. TÜRKİYE (Application no. 9570/23)   JUDGMENT   Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Independent and impartial tribunal • Compulsory arbitration proceedings concerning the Turkish Volleyball Federation’s (TVF) refusal to approve an international beach volleyball referee’s appointment to international competitions and exclude her from the list of accredited referees for certain periods • Art   6 applicable • Approach taken with respect to compulsory dispute resolution mechanisms in Ali Rıza and Others v.   Turkey followed • Absence of any structural imbalance in the representation of the interests of clubs or federations in the appointment and functions of the Sports Arbitration Board • Members of the Sports Arbitration Board appointed by the Sports Minister who was not a party to the proceedings • Sufficient safeguards ensuring the independence and impartiality of the Sports Arbitration Board despite a number of shortcomings as those identified with regard to the Turkish Football Federation’s Arbitration Committee in Ali Rıza and Others v.   Turkey Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Fair hearing • Lack of a reasoned assessment of the underlying facts and the applicant’s decisive arguments by the Sports Arbitration Board resulting in insufficient judicial review of the discretion exercised by the TVF Art 8 • Ratione materiae • Art   8 not applicable following consequence-based approach as set out in Denisov v.   Ukraine [GC] • In case-circumstances adverse effects of TVF’s decision to not include the applicant on the list of referees eligible for international matches did not have a sufficiently serious impact on the applicant’s private life   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 6 January 2026   FINAL   06/04/2026   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Altıner Akıncı v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Saadet Yüksel,   Jovan Ilievski,   Péter Paczolay,   Gediminas Sagatys,   Juha Lavapuro,   Hugh Mercer , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 9570/23) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Ms   Yasemin   Altıner   Akıncı (“the applicant”), on 22 February 2023; the decision to give notice to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 2 December 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns compulsory sports arbitration proceedings in which the applicant alleged a breach of her right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal as well as an unjustified interference with her professional life. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Muğla. She was represented by Mr K. Altıparmak, a lawyer practising in Ankara. 3.     The Government were represented by their Co-Agent, Mr   Abdullah   Aydın, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5.     The applicant is a professional beach-volleyball referee who has been registered with Turkish Volleyball Federation (“the TVF”) since 2003 and has refereed national and international matches during her career. In particular, being Türkiye’s first female international beach volleyball referee, she refereed 707 international matches between 2009 and 2021, including matches assigned to her by the European Volleyball Confederation (“the CEV”) and the International Volleyball Federation (“the FIVB”) in the European and World Championship semi-finals and finals. She has been a registered international beach-volleyball referee with the CEV and the FIVB since 2010.         the first set of proceedings 6.     On 25 October 2021 the applicant was invited by the beach-volleyball division of FIVB to referee matches in the Beach Volleyball World Championship that would take place in Phuket, Thailand between 6   and   11   December 2021 for players under the age of 19 and between 14   and   19 December 2021 for players under the age of 21. She accepted the invitation. 7.     However, on 10 December 2021 the beach-volley division of the FIVB informed the applicant by email that the invitations sent to her for the tournaments in Phuket had had to be cancelled because the TVF had not approved her appointment. 8.     On 31 December 2021 the applicant wrote a letter to the TVF asking why they had refused to approve her appointment and what the legal basis for that decision had been. In the same letter, the applicant also asked to be informed of the reasons why they had systematically refused to assign her to any competitions organised by the TVF since 2019. 9.     The TVF replied to the applicant on 8 February 2022. It referred to section   9 of the Directive on Referees and Observers (see paragraph   43 below) and observed that it was within the discretion and remit of the Central Referee and Observer Committee (“the CROC”) to appoint referees and observers to participate in international and special competitions as well as special and official competitions held at the national level by the TVF. It went on to add that it was also entirely within the discretion of the TVF to give the FIVB and CEV a list of the referees it considered eligible to referee international competitions, and that appointments to specific competitions could only be made from that list. Beach and snow volleyball were being restructured, and the applicant had not been included in the lists sent to the CEV for the periods 1 October 2020 to 30 September 2021 and 1   October 2021 to 30 September 2022. 10.     On 16 February 2022 the applicant lodged a claim with the Arbitration Board of the Ministry of Youth and Sports (“the Sports Arbitration Board”) against the TVF, seeking the revocation of the CROC’s decision not to include her in the list of eligible referees for national and international competitions and also seeking compensation for loss of earnings for the tournaments in Phuket and for moral damage. In her petition she argued that despite the independent and autonomous status of sports federations, their decisions that affected athletes, coaches and referees should be treated as “administrative acts”. They should be subject to the principles of administrative law and to the Constitution, which provided that all acts and actions of the administration were subject to judicial review. In support of her argument that administrative law was applicable to sports federations, the applicant observed that those involved in federation activities were considered public officials for the purposes of criminal liability and that federation property was treated as public property as it could not be seized by the authorities (see Additional Article 9 of Law no.   3289 as in force at the time). Lastly, referring to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Resolution 77 (31) on the protection of the individual in relation to the acts of administrative authorities, the applicant argued that the TVF did not comply with the principles of good administration, including the requirement to give the reasons on which an administrative decision is based. 11.     In an interim decision of 28 February 2022, the Sports Arbitration Board ruled that it could not decide on the applicant’s claim without a decision by the Board of Directors of the TVF. It therefore gave the Board of Directors fifteen days to reply to the applicant. 12.     In its response to the Sports Arbitration Board, the Board of Directors reiterated that the appointment of referees was within the discretion of the CROC of the TVF and that without being on the list approved by the national federation, no referee could take part in international competitions. It confirmed that the applicant had not been on the list covering the periods between 1 October 2019 to 30 September 2022. The Board of Directors further noted that under the current regulations, there was no obligation to appoint all referees. It further noted that the national federation did not have to approve a referee for an international competition on the sole basis that an international sports body had offered a game to that particular referee. The final decision, according to the Board of Directors, always rested with the national bodies. Accordingly, the Board considered that the refusal to appoint the applicant had not been contrary to the regulations. 13 .     On 10 October 2022 the Sports Arbitration Board dismissed the applicant’s claim concerning the CROC’s decision to exclude her from the list of referees for the periods in question, observing that the decision was within the discretion of the authority and the limits of that discretion had not been exceeded. The Sports Arbitration Board also rejected her claim for compensation on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, referring to section 5 § 3 of the Regulations on the Sports Arbitration Board and pointing out that the civil courts had jurisdiction in that matter.       the second set of proceedings 14 .     The applicant was invited by the FIVB to referee an international beach volleyball tournament which was to take place from 19 May to 22   May 2022 and 21 July to 24 July 2022 in Kuşadası, Türkiye and Morocco, respectively. The applicant accepted the invitation. 15 .     On 6 May 2022 the applicant was informed by the FIVB that her appointment had to be cancelled because the TVF had intentionally omitted her name from the list of referees for 2022. The FIVB further observed that their regulations required the national federation to put referees forward for inclusion in the referee list for nomination. 16.     In the meantime, on 7 May 2022 the TVF had announced on its website that an online seminar would be held for the referees assigned to snow and beach volleyball competitions in the 2021-2022 season. The applicant was not included in the list of referees attending the seminar. 17.     On 9 May 2022 the applicant asked the TVF to include her in the list of referees that could attend the online seminar and to approve her FIVB assignment to referee the international beach volleyball competitions taking place in Kuşadası, Türkiye and Morocco (see paragraph 14 above). 18.     The TVF Board of Directors dismissed the applicant’s request on the grounds that she was not included in the list of eligible referees. The applicant therefore brought a case before the Sports Arbitration Board, seeking the retraction of the TVF’s decision and compensation for loss and damage. 19.     On 10 October 2022 the Sports Arbitration Board dismissed the applicant’s case, repeating the reasons it had given in the first set of proceedings (see paragraph 13 above). 20.     The applicant was notified of both decisions on 8 November 2022. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE         General remarks 21 .     Under Article 59 § 3 of the Turkish Constitution, the decisions of sports federations relating to the administration of and discipline in sporting activities may be challenged only through compulsory arbitration. Decisions of arbitration committees are final and are not subject to judicial review. 22.     Article 125 of the Constitution provides that all administrative acts and decisions are subject to judicial review. 23.     Except for those relating to football, all sports federation disputes are decided by the Sports Arbitration Board of the Ministry of Sports. In the case of football, decisions are taken by the Arbitration Committee of the Turkish Football Federation, which is governed under separate regulations (see Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey , nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 87-91, 28   January 2020 ) .       Law no. 3289 on youth and sports 24.     The main legislation concerning the composition and functioning of the Sports Arbitration Board is set out in Law no. 3289, which has been in force since 21 May 1986. Details of the duties and responsibilities of the Sports Arbitration Board, their working methods, remuneration and other related matters are set out further in a regulation of 28 January 2012 issued by the Ministry of Sports and published in the Official Gazette (no.   28187). 25.     Under Law no. 3289, the Sports Arbitration Board is constituted by seven general and seven substitute members, of whom five must be lawyers and two must be executives who have carried out scientific studies in the field of sports or who have held managerial, technical and similar other positions in sports. Persons who have roles on the boards of sports federations and sports clubs or who have received a disciplinary sanction other than a warning or who have been convicted of certain offences may not be members. Judges and prosecutors may be appointed as members without losing their judicial position or their judicial immunities. Members are appointed with the approval of the Ministry of Youth and Sports for a period of four years. The members elect a chairman from among themselves. 26.     The Sports Arbitration Board has jurisdiction over any disputes brought against sports federations by clubs, athletes, referees, technical directors or coaches as well as disputes between clubs or against clubs brought by athletes, referees, technical directors or coaches. It is also authorised to review the decisions of federations and of their disciplinary committees if an interested party objects to a decision. Lastly, it is authorised to conduct the final review of decisions of the Central Disciplinary Committee in disciplinary proceedings brought by the Sports Minister against the president of a sports federation or members of its governing bodies. 27.     Law no. 3289 further specifies that the Sports Arbitration Board must carry out its duties in an independent and impartial manner. Unless its members resign, or are deemed to have withdrawn, they may not be replaced. The relevant legislation does not contain any prohibition preventing the reappointment of members of the Sports Arbitration Board for a further term. 28.     Applications to the Sports Arbitration Board for the review of a decision must be made in writing. The Sports Arbitration Board first examines whether the written application meets the formal requirements and, if it does, serves it on the relevant parties with a request for a reply. Following the exchange of written submissions, the case is sent to the Sports Arbitration Board together with the opinion of the member who has examined the case. If the chairman finds it necessary, he may also appoint an expert to deliver an opinion on the case. As a general rule, the Board examines the case on the basis of written submissions, but where necessary, it may invite the parties to present their arguments orally. However, the regulation of 28 January 2012 specifies that Sports Arbitration Board hearings are not open to the public. 29.     The quorum of the Sports Arbitration Board is five members and decisions are taken by the majority of members present. Where the votes are equal, the chairman has the casting vote. 30.     The Board examines the case-file, including witness statements, expert opinions and any other evidence and takes its decision on the basis of domestic law and the rules of the national and international sports federations. 31.     The Sports Arbitration Board must give reasons for its decisions and dissenting members may write separate opinions. The operative part of the decision is notified immediately to the parties and to the secretariat of the federation concerned and a reasoned decision must follow later. 32.     Law no. 3289 further states that decisions of the Sports Arbitration Board are treated as “a decision of a court” within the meaning of the execution of judgments and other similar legislation having binding force. 33.     It is possible to apply to the Sports Arbitration Board for it to reconsider its own decision. However, unless the issue concerns the rectification of material errors, or the reopening of the proceedings within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Sports Arbitration Board is prohibited from deciding the same matter again.     the constitutional court’s decision of 2 july 2009 34 .     At the time of the events in that case, the provision making decisions of the Sports Arbitration Board final was set out in only in Law no. 3289. The constitutionality of that provision was challenged in the Constitutional Court in proceedings concerning a decision to transfer a basketball player. On 2   July 2009 the Constitutional Court held that the provision was unconstitutional. It observed that the Sports Arbitration Board, which was part of the Ministry, had to be treated as an administrative body. Even though the legislature could require parties to apply to an administrative body for decisions on sports ‑ related disputes, the parties could not be deprived of their constitutional right of access to an independent and impartial court. Moreover, the provision that the decisions of Sports Arbitration Board were final also contradicted the principle that all official acts must be subject to judicial oversight. 35.     Following the Constitutional Court’s decision, the Constitution was amended on 17 March 2011 to state that decisions of sports federations relating to the administration and discipline of sporting activities could be challenged only through compulsory arbitration (see paragraph 21 above).      status of the turkish volleyball association and the governing legislation 36.     Law No. 7405 provides a definition of a sports federation as an entity established by law or a presidential decree with the objective of conducting activities related to a specific sport. These federations are characterised by administrative and financial autonomy. Their governing bodies are elected. 37.     Sports federations are governed by their main Statute, which is published in the Official Gazette with the approval of the Ministry of Sports. The Turkish Volleyball Federation’s main Statute has been amended several times. The latest Statute was adopted on 6 March 2025. At the time of the events giving rise to the present application, the law in force was the Statute of 22 April 2012 as amended on 29 January 2018 (hereinafter “the Statute”). 38.     The Turkish Volleyball Federation (“the TVF”) is the highest authority regulating and overseeing all aspects of professional and amateur volleyball in the country. The federation is responsible for, among other things, ensuring the implementation of international rules and of regulations made and enforced by the European Volleyball Confederation (“the CEV”) and the International Volleyball Federation (“the FIVB”). It also represents Türkiye in international volleyball-related activities. In addition, the federation also registers, licenses, and appoints referees. 39.     Under the Statute, the TVF is an independent entity, governed by private-law principles. Its headquarters are in Ankara and it has the following main bodies: the Congress ( Genel Kurul ); the Board of Directors ( Yönetim Kurulu ); the Audit Committee ( Denetim Kurulu ); the Disciplinary Commitee ( Disiplin Kurulu ); and the Secretariat ( Genel Sekreterlik ). 40 .     The Congress is the highest body of the federation. It has the power to amend the Statute and also elects the president of the federation as well as the members of the Board of Directors, the Audit Committee and the Disciplinary Committee. It is composed of at least 150 but no more than 300   delegates. The number of delegates appointed by sports clubs and sports companies may not be less than 60% of the total number of delegates. Under Article   9 of the Statute, the following are eligible to become delegates of the Congress and participate and vote in the general assembly, which takes place every four years: (a) Delegates representing sports clubs and sports joint-stock companies from among those entities that have participated in and duly completed the activities of the relevant Sports Federation within the two seasons immediately preceding the date of the General Assembly. Delegates shall be appointed in accordance with the following criteria: 1. Three delegates shall be appointed from each sports club and sports company that participated at the highest level of the national volleyball leagues during the last season completed prior to the General Assembly. 2. One delegate shall be appointed from each sports club and sports company that ranked within the top six positions in its group in the first-level volleyball leagues during the last season completed prior to the General Assembly. 3. One delegate shall be appointed from each sports club and sports joint-stock company that ranked within the top two positions in its group in the final stage of the second-level volleyball leagues during the last season completed prior to the General Assembly. 4. One delegate shall be appointed from each sports club and sports company that participated in the National Youth Volleyball Championship in the junior and youth categories and was declared the national champion in the last season completed prior to the General Assembly. 5. One delegate shall be appointed from each sports club and sports company that reached the final of the National Championship in the discipline of volleyball for the hearing-impaired in the last season completed prior to the General Assembly. 6. One delegate shall be appointed from each sports club and sports company that reached the final stage of the Sitting Volleyball Super League in the last season completed prior to the General Assembly. (b) Two delegates shall be appointed by the Turkish National Olympic Committee. (c) Former presidents of the Sports Federation who served in that capacity with full authority in their discipline, provided that their term of office was not terminated as a result of judicial or administrative proceedings, shall be entitled to participate as delegates with voting rights. (ç) Delegates representing the Ministry of Sports shall be appointed in a number equivalent to ten percent of the total number of delegates to the General Assembly. (d) Two delegates shall be appointed by the Turkish Confederation of Amateur Sports Clubs. (e) A maximum of five delegates may be appointed, in order of priority, from among those individuals who, prior to the date of the General Assembly, served as members of the executive boards of international sports federations of which the national Sports Federation is a member, representing the Republic of Turkey. (f) Five former national athletes in the disciplines governed by the Sports Federation, provided they have ceased active sporting activity at least one (1) year prior to the date of the General Assembly, shall be designated as delegates. (g) Five delegates shall be appointed by lot from among those who formerly served as international referees in disciplines governed by the Sports Federation, provided that they have ceased active refereeing at least one year prior to the date of the General Assembly. (ğ) Five delegates shall be appointed by lot from among Turkish citizens who, in disciplines governed by the Sports Federation, formerly served as head coaches of the national team in the senior category, provided that they have ceased active coaching at least one year prior to the date of the General Assembly. (h) Club representatives to the general assembly shall be appointed by the club’s board of directors from among club members, based on the following principles, in such a way that a maximum of 50% are from the top league, a maximum of 30% from other leagues governed by the Federation, and a minimum of 20% from clubs participating in local or regional leagues: Three members for each team in the top leagues as of the date of the general assembly, One member for each team in the 1st leagues, which ranked in the top six of their group in the most recently completed season, One member for each team in the 2nd leagues, which ranked in the top two of their group in the most recently completed season, One member for each team participating in the 1st leagues of beach volleyball as of the date of the general assembly, Members appointed for each team in the regional away leagues, based on their final ranking at the end of the season, so that they constitute no less than 20% of the total club representatives. Additionally, for each team that has won a national championship in the Youth, Junior, Cadet, or Mini categories by participating in the National Infrastructure Championship, and for each team in the regional away leagues, one member shall be selected based on their final group ranking at the end of the season, so that these members together constitute no less than 20% of the total club representatives. 41.     The Board of Directors is the TVF’s executive body. It consists of the President and 14 regular and substitute members, all of whom are elected by the Congress. The President serves for a four-year term and acts as the chairman of the Board of Directors. Among the powers of the Board of Directors is that of training referees and also that of establishing the rules and procedures for their activities and deciding their applications and requests. 42.     The Central Referee and Observer Committee (“the CROC”) is a standing committee of the TVF whose main duty is to appoint referees and observers for official and private volleyball matches, including those that take place internationally. It is also the CROC’s responsibility to decide on the number and ranking of the referees that will be required each year. The CROC has the power to promote referees to the next level of function. There are seven levels: candidate referee; provincial (local) referee; national candidate referee; national referee; international candidate referee; international referee; and FIVB certified referee. 43 .     The regulations set out in the Referee and Observer Directive of 26   July 2013 as amended on 10 September 2020 provides in so far as relevant as follows: Section 27 - Assignment of Referees ... 27.1.4 International Candidate referees, international referees, and FIVB-level international referees may officiate in all types of matches, in any capacity. ... Section 29 – Guidelines for the Assignment of Referees to International Matches International referees are assigned to matches by the Central Referee and Observer Committee (CROC) and the Provincial Referee Committee. Referees are assigned to international duties based on their performance in domestic matches, as determined by the CROC. Each year, the CROC creates a ranking list based on the performance criteria outlined in Article 41.4. This list is submitted to the Federation and reported to the CEV. If referees fail to fulfil their domestic duties without a valid excuse or are penalised for their behaviour, the Federation may request the cancellation of their CEV or FIVB assignments—if those assignments were made without the Federation’s knowledge—by notifying the relevant organisations (the CEV and the FIVB). ... Section 30 Referees who are abroad for any reason are required to obtain prior authorisation from the Federation before officiating in the country in which they are present. Section 41 – Promotion of Referees and their ranking 41.4 – Nomination for International Refereeing When the FIVB announces that an International Candidate Referee course will be held, the CROC must select its nominees from among those national referees who have officiated in top-league matches for at least 5 years and have been registered with the FIVB for at least 3 years, in accordance with the quota for the country concerned. In addition to the FIVB requirements, candidates must possess the following qualifications: 41.4.1 Must possess the qualities necessary to best represent our country in international events. 41.4.2 Must know at least one of the languages specified by the FIVB and pass a foreign language exam administered by the MHGK. 41.4.3 Must meet the age requirements set by the International Federation (that is, they must be at least 25 years old and not older than 41 when they apply). Referees who meet the above requirements and are selected based on merit and quota are sent to take the international course. Those who complete the course successfully are recognised as FIVB International Candidate Referees. If they also pass the on-court evaluations in international matches organised by the CEV on behalf of the FIVB, they will be promoted to FIVB International Referee status. ... Section 42 – FIVB INTERNATIONAL REFEREES FIVB International Referees are referees selected by the FIVB for a period of 4 years from among the International Referees, based on criteria set by the FIVB for officiating in its own events. These referees are granted the title of “FIVB International Referee.” Referees included on the FIVB International Referee list may either be removed from the list or continue to remain on it at the end of their 4-year term, depending on their performance as evaluated by the FIVB.”      CEV and FIVB regulations 44.     In so far as relevant, Article 40.1 of the CEV Volleyball Competitions Regulations adopted by the CEV Board of Administration on 21 May 2022 sets out the refereeing requirements in the following manner: “§1 A referee of a match has the following profile: a. An International referee candidate or an International referee, b. Complies with the requirements mentioned in chapter 11 of the FIVB Sports Regulations. §2 A referee is appointed by the CEV European Refereeing Commission or the CEV Referee Delegate. A referee is eligible for an appointment to a match when the four following requirements are fulfilled: a. Such referee complies with article 40.1, b. Such referee is mentioned in the annual International Volleyball and Candidate International Referees list of a National Federation, c. Such referee was declared fit to fulfil his/her duties, d. Such referee successfully completed the E-Learning educational programme. ...” 45 .     In so far as relevant, the FIVB Event Regulations provide: 40.1 CATEGORIES RECOGNIZED BY THE FIVB The following categories of referees are recognized by the FIVB: a. National Referees; b. International Referee Candidates (course made at continental level); c. International Referees (continental/regional level); d. FIVB International Referees; and e. Challenge Referees. 40.4.4 The International Referee’s title is valid for four (4) years. 40.4.5 During this period, his or her National Federation must register him or her in the FIVB VIS system by no later than 1st November of each year providing an official activity report sheet of the number of national and international matches at which the International Referee officiated. 40.4.6 On the basis of these yearly reports, the FIVB Rules of the Game and Refereeing Commission will decide whether or not to prolong his or her title as International Referee, when he or she has reached the fourth (4th) year of service. 40.4.7 In the case of a lack of national or international activity of a referee, the FIVB Rules of the Game and Refereeing Commission can refuse to prolong the title and oblige him or her to participate in an additional International Refereeing Course or a refresher (theory and practical) examination, conducted by an FIVB Refereeing Instructor/Coach. If the referee passes, his or her title will be renewed for an additional four (4) years. 40.4.8 The age limit for an International Referee is sixty (60) years. ... 40.5.1 FIVB International Referees are those International Referees, as stated in Article 40.4.1 above, who are selected from the pool of Confederation International Referees to participate in a special FIVB International Referee course focused on issues that are specific to FIVB events. 40.7.3 The number of FIVB International Referees per country is limited based on the categories of national federations as follows: a. Group A: twenty (20) referees; b. Group B: fifteen (15) referees; c. Group C: ten (10) referees; and d. Group D: five (5) referees.    Committee of ministers resolution 77(31) on the protection of the individual in relation to the acts of administrative authorities 46.     This Resolution, which was adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 28   September 1977, established the principles for the protection of physical and legal persons in administrative procedures with regard to any individual measures or decisions which are taken in the exercise of public authority and which are of such nature as directly to affect their rights, liberties or interests. The relevant parts read as follows: “I Right to be heard 1. In respect of any administrative act of such nature as is likely to affect adversely his rights, liberties or interests, the person concerned may put forward facts and arguments and, in appropriate cases, call evidence which will be taken into account by the administrative authority.   2. In appropriate cases the person concerned is informed, in due time and in a manner appropriate to the case, of the rights stated in the preceding paragraph. II Access to information At his request, the person concerned is informed, before an administrative act is taken, by appropriate means, of all available factors relevant to the taking of that act. ... IV Statement of reasons Where an administrative act is of such nature as adversely to affect his rights, liberties or interests, the person concerned is informed of the reasons on which it is based. This is done either by stating the reasons in the act, or by communicating them, at his request, to the person concerned in writing within a reasonable time.” 47.     The Appendix specifies that the implementation of the principles established in the Resolution must take into account the requirements of good and efficient administration, as well as the interests of third parties and major public interests. The interests referred to can therefore justify the variation or exclusion of the principles established in the Resolution, either in particular cases or in specific areas of public administration. However, any variation or derogation should be in keeping with the fundamental aim of the Resolution, which is the achievement of the highest possible degree of fairness. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 48.     The applicant complained that the Sports Arbitration Board had not had the qualities of independence and impartiality required under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention. Under the same provision, she further complained that the Board had not given adequate reasons for its decision and that she had had no access to a judicial review of how the CROC had exercised its discretion. The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”    Admissibility 49.     The Government argued that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention did not apply to the proceedings before the Sports Arbitration Board. They submitted that the dispute in question had not involved the determination of the applicant’s civil rights and obligations. The Government also made a number of arguments concerning the nature of Sports Arbitration Board proceedings. The Court considers that these arguments do not pertain to the applicability of Article 6 § 1 and will therefore examine them in connection with the merits. 50.     The applicant drew a parallel between herself and the situation of the fifth applicant in the case of Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey (nos.   30226/10 and 4 others, § 160, 28 January 2020), who had been downgraded from the rank of national to that of provincial referee. She noted that the Court had found that Article 6 was applicable in that applicant’s case and that her situation was even more severe than the situation of that fifth applicant, since the CROC’s decision to cancel her assignments in the international competitions had effectively terminated her refereeing career. In this connection, she noted that the FIVB had stopped assigning her to tournaments, which had resulted in her being deprived of the earnings that she could have expected had she been able to continue with her career. 51 .     The Court observes that the applicant brought two separate claims before the Sports Arbitration Board. The first claim related to the lawfulness the CROC’s decision not to confirm her assignment to referee the tournaments in question and the second claim concerned her alleged loss of earnings as a result of not being assigned to any matches. The Court considers it appropriate to clarify at the outset that the scope of the complaint before it is limited to the CROC’s decision not to confirm her assignments in question and does not concern the compensation claim, in so far as the latter which had been raised in the context of another complaint was declared inadmissible at the stage of communication of the application by the President of the Section acting as a single judge. 52.     Having clarified the scope of the complaint, the Court must next examine whether Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applied to the dispute arising out of the CROC’s discretionary decision not to confirm the applicant’s participation in the international tournaments, despite her being an FIVB ‑ level international referee and having received official invitations from the organisers of those events. In that connection, the Court will have to determine whether, in the circumstances of the present case, the applicant had a “civil right” which can be said, at least to an arguable extent, to have been recognised under domestic law. 53.     Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee any particular content of “civil rights and obligations” in the substantive law of the Contracting States: the Court may not create through the interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see, for example, Grzęda v.   Poland   [GC], no. 43572/18, § 258, 15 March 2022). 54.     In order to decide whether the “right” in question has a basis in domestic law, the starting-point must be the provisions of the relevant domestic law and their interpretation by the domestic courts. The Court reiterates that it is primarily for the national authorities, in particular the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic legislation. Unless the interpretation is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable, the Court’s role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of that interpretation are compatible with the Convention. Thus, where the superior national courts have analysed in a comprehensive and convincing manner the precise nature of the impugned restriction of access to a court, on the basis of the relevant Convention case-law and principles drawn therefrom, the Court would need strong reasons to differ from the conclusion reached by those courts by substituting its own views for theirs on a question of interpretation of domestic law and by finding, unlike them, that the person concerned arguably had a right recognised by domestic law (see Grzęda , cited above, §   259, with further references). 55.     In carrying out this assessment, it is necessary to look beyond appearances and the language used and to concentrate on the realities of the situation (see Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, §   121, ECHR   2005 ‑ X, and Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no. 37575/04, §   92, ECHR   2012, with further reference). 56.     It is the right as asserted by the applicant in the domestic proceedings that must be taken into account in order to assess whether Article 6 § 1 is applicable. Where there was a genuine and serious dispute about the existence of that right, a decision by the domestic courts that there was no such right does not remove, retrospectively, the arguability of the claim (see Károly Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 56665/09, § 63, 14 September 2017, with further references). 57.     The rights conferred by the domestic legislation can be substanti