FENERBAHÇE FUTBOL ANONIM ŞIRKETI AND FENERBAHÇE SPOR KULÜBÜ v. TÜRKİYE

Published on 24 March 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 38961/23 FENERBAHÇE FUTBOL ANONİM ŞİRKETİ and FENERBAHÇE SPOR KULÜBÜ against Türkiye lodged on 27 October 2023 communicated on 5 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the nine championships the applicant clubs have won prior to 1959. The applicants’ request of 6 March 2021 to the Turkish Football Federation (“TFF”) to register those championships as “national league championships” with a view to increasing the first applicant’s total number of championships to 28, and the number of stars on their team badge to 5, and to adjust the broadcast revenue distribution accordingly, which would also entitle them to a compensation of 11,100,000 US dollars plus interest, representing the broadcast revenue they would have received since 2005 had their nine championships in question been taken into account, was not answered. The applicants’ subsequent written pleadings to the TFF also remained without a clear reply. As a result, on 12 May 2023 the first applicant brought proceedings before the Arbitration Committee of the TFF in the name of both applicants, arguing that the TFF’s failure to reply amounted to an implied rejection of their request of 6 March 2021 and therefore asked the Arbitration Committee to rule in their favour with respect to their nine championships won prior to 1959 along with their pecuniary claims with respect to broadcast revenues. In a decision of 18 July 2023, the Arbitration Committee rejected the case, noting that its competence covered decisions of the Board of Directors of the TFF and that it could not decide in the absence of such a decision. It noted that the Board of Directors had not rendered a decision on the dispute and that, moreover, the TFF had announced on 15 July 2023 that it had established a special commission to examine the issue of championships prior to 1959. The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that they have no access to an independent and impartial tribunal that could determine their dispute with the TFF regarding the recognition of their championships prior to 1959. They submit in this connection that the TFF refuses to render a decision in respect of their claim and that the Arbitration Committee, which also refused to examine the dispute, was not independent and impartial. The applicants further argue that despite the announcement of 15 July 2023, and until their application with the Court, there is neither an established special commission within the TFF nor any concrete action undertaken by the latter in this regard. Lastly the applicants consider that the championships won prior to 1959 constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that therefore their non-recognition by the TFF deprives them of all the pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefits that are directly related to the number of championships recognised by the TFF for the purposes of the Turkish Super League (formerly also known as the Turkish Premier League). In particular, the applicants argue that the TFF’s decision to consider 1959 (the date when the Turkish Premier Football League began) as the cut-off date for the number of national championships won by football clubs to be arbitrary given that the Turkish Football Federation was inaugurated in 1923 and national football matches, including away matches, took place as early as 1924. They complain in addition under Article 13 of the Convention about the unavailability of effective domestic remedies to defend their property rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.  Are the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the recognition of their nine championships prior to 1959 compatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention (see, for general principles, Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no. 37575/04, §§ 90-94, ECHR 2012)?   2.  Assuming that Article 6 § 1 is applicable to the dispute in question, has there been a violation of the applicants’ right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the refusal of the Arbitration Committee of the TFF to examine the merits of the dispute in question (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-79, 5 April 2018, and Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey, nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 194-223, 28 January 2020)?   3.  Are the applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention compatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the said Protocol (see generally Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35 (c) and §§ 45-52, ECHR 2004-IX, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002‑VII)?   4.  If so, has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, have the applicants been deprived of their possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for general principles, Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, §§ 92-95, 11 December 2018)? In that connection, is there a regulatory basis for the TFF to determine the year 1959 as the cut-off date for the purposes of registering the total number of national championships won by a professional club, which allegedly also directly affects the number of stars that can be displayed on a club’s badge and the earnings from the broadcast revenue of football matches?   5.  Do the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 74288/14 and 64568/16, §§ 78-81, 14 October 2021)?