BAKI AND FENERBAHÇE FUTBOL ANONIM ŞIRKETI v. TÜRKİYE

Published on 7 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 33029/23 Selahattin BAKİ and FENERBAHÇE FUTBOL ANONİM ŞİRKETİ against Türkiye lodged on 9 August 2023 communicated on 17 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the applicants – the first applicant being a former board member of the Fenerbahçe sports club, which is the second applicant – by the Professional Football Disciplinary Committee of the Turkish Football Federation (“TFF”). The sanctions were issued as a result of statements made by the first applicant, which were subsequently published on the official website of the second applicant, criticising the referee of a match played on 10 April 2023. The Disciplinary Committee fined the first applicant 50,000 Turkish Liras (“TRY”, approximately 2,300 euros at the time) and imposed a twenty-one-day suspension from all football-related activities. The second applicant was fined 200,000 TRY (approximately 9,400 euros at the time). Additionally, the Committee imposed a further fine of 250,000 TRY on the second applicant due to controversial chanting by supporters during the match. On 14 April 2023 the Arbitration Committee of the TFF overturned the Disciplinary Committee’s decision in a brief ruling (kısa karar). Instead, it imposed a revised disciplinary fine of 100,000 TRY (approximately 4,700 euros at the time) on each applicant for statements deemed to have damaged the reputation of football under Article 38 of the Football Disciplinary Instructions. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the decisions delivered by the TFF’s Disciplinary Committee and Arbitration Committee were inadequately reasoned. Based on the same article, the applicants also allege that these bodies lacked independence and impartiality due to the relevant legislation in force at the material time. They also argue that the modifications made to the statutes of the TFF in 2022 failed to provide sufficient guarantees to ensure the independence and impartiality of those bodies. Invoking Article 10 of the Convention, the applicants further complain that their right to freedom of expression was infringed by the sanctions imposed. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.  Did the proceedings before the Turkish Football Federation (“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 (García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I)?   2.  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 (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?   3.  Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, and in particular their right to impart information or ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention because of the sanctions imposed on them by the TFF authorities?   If so, was this interference prescribed by law and necessary within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 (Sedat Doğan, cited above, §§ 35-43; Naki and AMED Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü Derneği, cited above, §§ 32-38; and İbrahim Tokmak, cited above, §§ 30-37)?   In particular, did the national authorities carry out, in their decisions in the present case, a sufficient examination and a proper balancing between the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and other interests at stake in the light of the criteria set out and applied by the Court in cases concerning freedom of expression?