CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mars 2024

.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 8 April 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 23990/23 Nevres Erol BILECIK and FENERBAHCE FUTBOL ANONIM SIRKETI against Türkiye lodged on 1 June 2023 communicated on 19 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the applicants – the first applicant being the deputy president and press secretary of the Fenerbahçe sports club, which is the second applicant – by the Professional Football Disciplinary Committee of the Turkish Football Federation (“TFF”). The sanctions were imposed for the offence of undermining the integrity and the impartiality of the referee and other officials of a match through press or social media under article 38 of the Football Disciplinary Instructions, on account of the critical statements the first applicant had made and which had been published on the official website of the second applicant with regard to the referee of a match played on 23   January 2023. A disciplinary fine of 100,000 Turkish Liras (“TRY”) (approximately 4,878 euros at the time of the events) was imposed on each of the applicants. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the decisions delivered by the TFF’s Disciplinary Committee and Arbitration Committee were inadequately reasoned. Based on the same article, the applicants also allege that these bodies lacked independence and impartiality due to the relevant legislation in force at the material time. Invoking Article 10 of the Convention, the applicants complain that their right to freedom of expression was infringed by the sanctions imposed. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in its civil or criminal limb, applicable to the proceedings before the Turkish Football Federation (“TFF”)?   Did the proceedings at issue satisfy the requirements of a fair trial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   Were the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee of the TFF, which heard the applicants’ case, independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ( Ali Rıza and Others v.   Turkey , nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 150-161 and 194-222, 28   January 2020; Sedat Doğan v. Turkey , no. 48909/14, §§ 20 and 27, 18   May 2021; Naki and Amed Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü Derneği v. Turkey , no. 48924/16, §   26, 18 May 2021; and İbrahim Tokmak v. Turkey , no. 54540/16, § 22, 18 May 2021)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, and in particular their right to impart information or ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention because of the sanctions imposed on them by the TFF authorities?   If so, was this interference prescribed by law and necessary within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 ( Sedat Doğan , cited above, §§ 35-43, Naki and Amed Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü Derneği , cited above, §§ 32-38 and İbrahim Tokmak , cited above, §§ 30-37)?   In particular, did the national authorities carry out, in their decisions in the present case, a sufficient examination and a proper balancing between the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and other interests at stake in the light of the criteria set out and applied by the Court in cases concerning freedom of expression?