CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 6 October 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 26828/23 Burak PUHALOĞLU against Türkiye lodged on 4 July 2023 communicated on 17 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a football manager. On 1 March 2019 he applied to the Dispute Resolution Board ( Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Kurulu , “the UÇK”) of the Turkish Football Federation ( Türkiye Futbol Federasyonu , “the TFF”) in relation to a contractual dispute between him and a football player. On 27   May 2019 the UÇK partially accepted the applicant’s claims and awarded him pecuniary compensation. However, on 22 August 2019 the Arbitration Committee of the TFF quashed the above decision of the UÇK and dismissed the applicant’s case. On 13 August 2020 the applicant applied to the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal seeking the annulment of the Arbitration Committee’s decision. He argued, among other things, that the Arbitration Committee lacked independence and impartiality, and that, under the applicable domestic regulations, it had no jurisdiction to hear his case as the other party was not a Turkish citizen. On 24 December 2020 his request was rejected on the grounds that the Arbitration Committee had acted independently and impartially, and that there was no basis to annul its decision. On 7   December 2021 the Court of Cassation summarily dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, arguing that the Arbitration Committee lacked independence and impartiality, and that its decision was arbitrary, unreasonable and devoid of reasoning. He further complained that the decisions of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation lacked sufficient reasons answering his significant arguments concerning the proceedings before the Arbitration Committee. On 2 March 2023 the Constitutional Court declared, in a summary judgment, the applicant’s individual application inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the Arbitration Committee lacked independence and impartiality due to the relevant legislation in force at the material time. He further contends that all the decisions rendered at the domestic level were arbitrary and lacked sufficient reasoning. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the Arbitration Committee of the TFF, which heard the applicant’s case, independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ali Rıza and Others v.   Turkey , nos.   30226/10 and 4   others, §§ 150-61 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 the Arbitration Committee?   2.     Were the decisions of the Arbitration Committee, the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court adequately reasoned (see García Ruiz v. Spain   [GC], no.   30544/96, §   26, ECHR 1999-I)?