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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Published on 6 October 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 2977/24 FENERBAHÇE SPOR KULÜBÜ and Scott Jordan VILBEKIN against Türkiye lodged on 29 January 2024 communicated on 17 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The first applicant is a multi-sport club which operates, inter alia , a basketball branch. The second applicant, a Turkish national born in the United States of America, is a contracted basketball player for the first applicant’s basketball team. The application concerns the alleged violations of Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, on account of a disciplinary sanction imposed on the second applicant. On 26 August 2023 the Turkish Basketball Disciplinary Board imposed a ban prohibiting the second applicant from playing in five basketball matches and subjected him to a disciplinary fine amounting to a total of TRY   90,000 (approximately 3,147 euros at the material time) for refusing to participate in national team matches without a reasonable excuse, contrary to the relevant provisions of the Basketball Disciplinary Directive (“the Directive”). Pursuant to the repealed paragraph 8 of Article 10 of the Directive, the applicant also permanently lost his eligibility to play for the Turkish national basketball team, as his status as a “Turkish basketball player” was automatically terminated as a result of that sanction. The applicants’ objection to that decision was rejected by the Arbitration Committee of the Ministry of Youth and Sports. Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, both applicants allege that the Arbitration Committee did not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that they were unable to challenge its decision. The applicants further complain of the failure of the Arbitration Committee to hold a hearing and to render a reasoned decision. Under Article 8 of the Convention, the second applicant further complains of having been deprived of his status as a national basketball player, as he was subjected to severe sanctions despite being unable to play due to an injury documented by a medical report at the material time. Lastly, both applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the sanction in question was unlawful and amounted to an excessive burden on them. The first applicant also alleges that, since the second applicant lost his status as a Turkish player, the club incurred financial loss and had to review its investment plans and basketball team structure due to the regulatory restrictions as to the maximum number of foreign players. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, under its civil limb, applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see Ali Rıza and Others v.   Turkey , nos.   30226/10 and 4 others, § 160, 28 January 2020)?   2.     If so, did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   In that connection, (a)     Can the Arbitration Committee be regarded as a “tribunal” for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, having regard to the specific nature of sports disputes (see, mutatis mutandis , Ali Rıza and Others , cited above, §§ 175-181)? If so, was the Arbitration Committee independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 194-200)?   (b)     Assuming that the Arbitration Committee cannot be regarded as an “independent and impartial tribunal” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, has the applicants’ right of access to a court been breached on account of their inability to challenge the Arbitration Committee’s decision before domestic courts (see   generally Ramos Nunes de Carvalho   e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos.   55391/13 and 2 others, §§   176-186, 6   November 2018)?   (c)     Assuming that the Arbitration Committee is an “independent and impartial tribunal”, did its impugned decision contain adequate reasoning with respect to the applicants’ arguments (see, among others,   Alonso Saura v.   Spai n , no. 18326/19 , §§ 34-35, 8 June 2023)? Has there been a public hearing in the present case, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho   e Sá , cited above, §§ 187-192)?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the second applicant being deprived of his national basketball player status (see   Denisov v.   Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11 , §§ 115-117, 25   September 2018, and Platini v. Switzerland (dec.), no.   526/18 , § 57, 11   February 2020)?   4.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the present case? In particular;   (a)     Did the fine imposed on the second applicant constitute an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions protected by Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, was that interference lawful and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties (see generally Konstantin Stefanov v. Bulgaria , no.   35399/05 , §§   53-61, 27 October 2015)?   (b)     Furthermore, in so far as the first applicant complains of a violation of its rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the sanction that led to the second applicant’s loss of status as a “Turkish basketball player”:   (i)     Does the first applicant have victim status within the meaning of Article   34 of the Convention in respect of this complaint?   (ii)     If so, did the alleged consequences of the said sanction imposed on the second applicant, as described by the first applicant, amount to a violation of the first applicant’s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention?