CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 December 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 2313/23 İsmet CENGIZ against Türkiye lodged on 23 December 2022 communicated on 21 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns reinstatement proceedings before the Turkish Football Federation (TFF). The applicant is a former referee and observer at the TFF. At the time of the coup attempt of 15 July 2016, he was a member of the Central Referee Committee of the TFF (CRC). According to the legislation at the time, even though the members of the CRC could not act as observers during their tenure, they could be relisted in the observer list following the termination of their duties at the CRC. It appears that the Board of Directors of the TFF asked all its committee members, including those sitting in the CRC, to submit their resignation with a view to carrying out a security clearance following the coup attempt. On 31   July 2016 the Board of Directors announced on the TFF’s website that all the members of its legal and standing committees had presented their individual resignations, and that the Board of Directors would refuse the resignation of those whose security clearance showed absence of links with terrorist organisations and that new compositions of the committees would thereafter be announced to the public. On 3 August 2016 the Board of Directors announced on the TFF’s website the new composition of the CRC. The applicant was not featured in it. Since August 2016 the applicant has made repeated requests with the TFF to be reinstated as an observer in the TFF’s observer list. The applicant’s official inquiries with State departments, including the Istanbul prosecutor’s offices, the Istanbul Governor’s Office and the Ministry of Interior demonstrated that he did not have past or ongoing criminal investigations relating to a terrorist offence. Following the implicit refusal of his last request of 27 August 2020 to be included in the observer list for the 2020-2021 football season, the applicant brought proceedings before the TFF’s Arbitration Committee which referred his case to the CRC for examination. The CRC in turn has not examined the request to date. The applicant submits under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the CRC abstains from examining the dispute, and that his application has been pending examination since the Arbitration Committee referred the case to it. He further complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the TFF harmed his reputation on account of its Board of Directors’ announcements on its website and that by not reinstating him to the list of observers the TFF continues to deprive him of his right to respect for his private life. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right of access to court under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention on account of the failure of the complaint procedure before the TFF to determine his civil action (see, mutatis mutandis , Kutić v. Croatia , no. 48778/99, §§ 24-33, ECHR 2002‑II; and Sailing Club of Chalkidiki “I Kelyfos” v. Greece , nos.   6978/18 and 8547/18, § 60, 21 November 2019)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, by the TFF’s failure to reinstate the applicant to the list of observers and the announcement of its Board of Directors in respect of the procedure followed in that regard (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§   115-116, 25   September 2018, and Pişkin v. Turkey , no. 33399/18, §§   174-177, 15   December 2020)?