CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 janvier 2026

.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 9 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 12145/24 İSTANBUL SPOR FAALİYETLERİ ANONİM ŞİRKETİ and SARIALİOĞLU against Türkiye lodged on 19 April 2024 communicated on 22 January 2026 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns disciplinary sanctions imposed on the applicants by the Professional Football Disciplinary Committee (“PFDC”) of the Turkish Football Federation (“TFF”). The first applicant (“İstanbulspor”) is a professional football club chaired by the second applicant. On 19 December 2023 İstanbulspor and Trabzonspor faced each other in a Turkish Super League football match. During the match, the second applicant left the protocol stand, came to the pitch line, and instructed his team to withdraw from the match. İstanbulspor players withdrew from the pitch in accordance with his instructions, and the match was suspended. On 23 December 2023 the PFDC issued disciplinary sanctions against the applicants. It held that İstanbulspor was deemed to have forfeited the match and accordingly ordered a deduction of three points. It further fined the second applicant 780,000 Turkish Liras (TRY) (approximately 24,138   euros at the material time) and imposed a ninety-day suspension from all football-related activities (i) for unsporting behaviour in the form of instructing the team to withdraw from the pitch, and (ii) for violating the accreditation rules by coming to the pitch line. It also issued a warning penalty against Istanbulspor for violating the accreditation rules. On 22 and 25   December 2023 the second applicant paid a total of TRY   900,000 to the TFF to prevent the execution of the ninety-day suspension. On 2 January 2024 the Arbitration Committee of the TFF upheld the PFDC’s decision. According to the applicants’ submissions, the reasoned decision had not been served on them yet on the introduction date of the present individual application. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants allege that both the PFDC and the Arbitration Committee did not satisfy the requirements of independence and impartiality, and failed to provide a reasoned decision. Under Article 6 of the Convention, they also complain that despite their requests the proceedings before both the PFDC and the Arbitration Committee were conducted without a hearing. Relying on Article 11 of the Convention, the applicants further allege that their withdrawal from the pitch was aimed at protesting against the alleged refereeing errors and pointing out long-standing systemic issues in the Turkish football leagues. Lastly, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the second applicant complains that the fine imposed by the PFDC was unlawful and significantly higher than previous sanctions. It thus placed an excessive individual burden on him which upset the fair balance that must be maintained between the demands of the general interest of the football community and the requirements of the protection of the right to property. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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 (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 both the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee?   2.     Did the proceedings before the 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)?   3.     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 v.   Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, §§ 187-92, 6   November 2018)?   4.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, on account of the disciplinary sanctions issued by the PFDC based on their withdrawal from the pitch ( see generally Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , nos.   57818/09 and   14   others, §§ 402-412, 7 February 2017)?   5.     Did the sanctions 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)?