Communicated on 29 November 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 67199/17 A.M . against Turkey lodged on 11 August 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the disciplinary sanction imposed on the applicant, who is a yoga instructor, and the ensuing proceedings. A disciplinary investigation was conducted by the disciplinary committee of the Sports for all Federation (“the Disciplinary Committee”), the governing body for the sport of yoga in Turkey, in respect of the applicant ’ s remarks which he had made in an online video uploaded to YouTube. The D isciplinary C ommittee found his remarks discriminatory and derogatory to the national dignity ( milli şeref ) and suspended him for three years for violation of disciplinary rules (sections 16 § 17 (a) and 17 § 1). The applicant objected to the decision before the Sports Arbitration Board ( Spor Tahkim Kurulu ), which is established under the auspices of the Ministry of Youth and Sports . The board upheld the D isciplinary C ommittee ’ s decision finding the applicant ’ s grounds for appeal unfounded. The board also dismissed the applicant ’ s request for rectification. This decision, which was rendered on 11 July 2017, was final and not subject to any judicial review before ordinary courts under article 59 of the Turkish Constitution.

The applicant complains that the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee and the Sports Arbitration Board did not satisfy the requirements of independence and impartiality guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention. Under the same provision, he complained about his inability to challenge their decisions before domestic courts. Lastly, he submitted that the disciplinary sanction imposed on him on account of the remarks that he had made in an online video amounted to a violation of his right to freedom of expression protected by Article 10 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, under its civil limb, applicable to the disciplinary proceedings in the present case?

If yes, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

In that connection,

( i ) Can the Disciplinary Committee and the Sports Arbitration Board be regarded as a “tribunal” for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

If so, were the members of the Disciplinary Committee and the Sports Arbitration Board, which conducted the impugned disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, independent and impartial as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

(ii) Assuming that the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Board cannot be regarded as a “ tribunal” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, has applicant ’ s right to access to a court been breached on account of his inability to challenge the Sports Arbitration Board ’ s decision before domestic courts?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention on account of the disciplinary sanction imposed on him?

If so, was that interference prescribed by law and “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2?

In particular, were the disciplinary rules referred to by the Disciplinary Committee and the Sports Arbitration Board and their interpretation by the same sufficiently foreseeable and accessible? Moreover, did these disciplinary authorities strike a fair balance between the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression and the protection afforded to values such as “national dignity” and “freedom from discrimination” in the sport of yoga by the disciplinary rules in question?

The parties are requested to submit, if possible, a copy of the impugned YouTube video and/or its full transcript.