CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mars 2025

.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 31 March 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 26124/23 Selahattin BAKİ against Türkiye lodged on 22 June 2023 communicated on 12 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the disciplinary sanction imposed on the applicant – then board member of the Fenerbahçe sports club – by the Professional Football Disciplinary Committee of the Turkish Football Federation ( Türkiye Futbol Federasyonu , “the TFF”). The sanction was imposed for the offence of undermining the integrity and impartiality of the referee and other match officials through the press or social media, as set out in Articles   36 and 38 of the Football Disciplinary Instructions. It was based on critical statements made by the applicant to the press, which were also published on the official website of the Fenerbahçe sports club, concerning the referee of a match played on 2 February 2023. The applicant was subjected to two separate disciplinary fines, amounting to a total of 270,000   Turkish Liras (“TRY”) (approximately 13,500 euros at the time of the events). The applicant was also given a 30-day ban prohibiting him from participating in any football-related activities ( hak mahrumiyeti cezası ). The applicant’s objection to the disciplinary sanction before the Arbitration Committee was also rejected. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the decisions delivered by the TFF’s Disciplinary Committee and Arbitration Committee were inadequately reasoned. Based on the same article, the applicant also alleges that these bodies lacked independence and impartiality due to the relevant legislation in force at the material time. He also argues that the modifications made to the statutes of the TFF in 2022 failed to provide sufficient guarantees to ensure the independence and impartiality of those bodies. Invoking Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant further complains that his right to freedom of expression was infringed by the sanctions imposed. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the proceedings before the Turkish Football Federation (“TFF”) satisfy the conditions of a fair trial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the decisions of the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee of the TFF adequately reasoned (see García   Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I)?   2.     Were the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee of the TFF, which heard the applicant’s 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, §§ 20-21 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)? Additionally, did the modifications to the statutes of the TFF adopted on 16 June 2022 provide sufficient guarantees of the independence and impartiality of both the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, and in particular his right to impart information or ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention because of the sanctions imposed on him 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 applicant’s 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?