CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 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. 8131/22 GALATASARAY SPORTİF SINAİ VE TİCARİ YATIRIMLAR ANONİM ŞİRKETİ and Oğulcan ÇAĞLAYAN against Türkiye lodged on 19 January 2022 communicated on 20 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the imposition of a transfer ban by the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) on the applicant company, a professional football club in the top Turkish professional league, and the other applicant, a professional football player, on account of the latter’s breach of the provisions of the Professional Football Transfer Directive following a contractual dispute with another football club. That contractual dispute was decided by the Arbitration Committee of the TFF on 11 February 2021. The applicants requested the Istanbul Regional Civil Court to set aside the decision of 11   February 2021 on the grounds, inter alia , that the Arbitration Committee of the TFF was not independent and impartial. Those latter proceedings which are pending before domestic courts do not concern the subject matter of the present application. While those proceedings before the civil courts were ongoing, the first applicant requested the TFF to suspend the transfer ban in so far as the Arbitration Committee’s decision of 11 February 2021 was not final within the meaning of section 12 of the Professional Football Transfer Directive. It argued that their inability to make any transfers for the next season interfered with their principal activity. In a final decision of 25 June 2021 the Arbitration Committee ruled in favour of the first applicant and set aside the transfer ban. On 13 July 2021 both applicants made a request with the TFF to set aside the transfer ban in respect of the second applicant (in his individual capacity as a football player) with a view to registering him as a player with the first applicant while reiterating that the Arbitration Committee’s decision of 11   February 2021, giving rise to the ban, was not final and was being examined before civil courts. In a decision of 3 August 2021 the Arbitration Committee dismissed the request, noting that transfer ban in place for the second applicant could not be set aside. Relying on the findings of the Court in the case of Ali Rıza and Others v.   Turkey (nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 201-223, 28 January 2020), the applicants complain about the Arbitration Committee’s decision of 3 August 2021 under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, arguing that their dispute was not decided by an independent and impartial tribunal. Under the same provision, they further complain that the Arbitration Committee gave directly opposite decisions in identical situations. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the proceedings in issue satisfy the requirements of independence and impartiality in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey, nos. 30226/10 and 4 others , §§ 194-223, 28   January 2020)?   2.     In the light of the applicants’ allegation that the Arbitration Committee had reached different conclusions in cases that were identical, was the applicants’ right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention infringed (see Stoilkovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   29784/07, §§ 47-49, 18 July 2013)?