CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 avril 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 4 May 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 3868/23 YANTRA 2019 UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB ASSOCIATION against Bulgaria lodged on 9 January 2023 communicated on 13 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns disciplinary proceedings against the applicant carried out by bodies of the Bulgarian Football Union (hereinafter “the BFU”). The applicant is a football club based in Gabrovo and a member of the BFU. On 24 March 2022, the BFU’s Disciplinary Commission imposed a fine of 10,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN, equivalent to 5,115 euros – EUR) on the applicant. The decision contained no description of the relevant facts and no reasoning. It merely cited two provisions of the BFU’s Disciplinary Code referring broadly to breaches of the BFU’s statute, other internal regulations or decisions, Bulgarian law, or requirements of international football federations. According to the applicant, the sanction was imposed because a member of its board of directors had taken a stance against the BFU’s management. The applicant sought judicial review of the disciplinary decision. However, the administrative courts declared the application inadmissible. In a decision of 9 May 2022, the Gabrovo Administrative Court held that the BFU was not a State body, that it had its own disciplinary framework, and that the courts lacked jurisdiction to review decisions of its disciplinary bodies. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld those conclusions in a final decision dated 9 September 2022. The applicant’s challenge was subsequently transmitted to the BFU’s Appellate Commission, which is competent to review certain decisions of the Disciplinary Commission. On 21 September 2022, the Appellate Commission upheld the impugned decision, again without providing any reasoning. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, relying also on Article 13, that it had no access to a “tribunal” offering the guarantees of a fair trial. It argues in particular that the BFU’s Disciplinary Commission and Appellate Commission lack independence and impartiality, as their members are appointed for a one-year term by the BFU’s Executive Committee, without any safeguards against influence or pressure. It points out in addition that both bodies failed to provide any reasoning in the decisions given in its case. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to the present case (see, mutatis mutandis , Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland , nos. 40575/10 and   67474/10, § 115, 2 October 2018, and Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey , nos.   30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 180-81, 28 January 2020)? 2.     If so, did the applicant have access to a “tribunal” offering the guarantees of fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? 3.     In particular, did the disciplinary bodies of the Bulgarian Football Union which examined the applicant’s case meet the requirements of Article   6 § 1 regarding independence and impartiality, and did they deliver reasoned decisions?