Communicated on 6 February 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 17880/11 Fatih ARSLAN against Turkey and 2 other applications (see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern the disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Amateur Football Disciplinary Board of the Turkish Football Federation (“the Disciplinary Board”) on the applicants, who were players of an amateur football club at the material time, and the appeal proceedings conducted before the Arbitration Board of the Turkish Football Federation (“the Arbitration Board”). The Disciplinary Board found the applicants guilty of unlawfully manipulating the match result and sanctioned them with a ban from playing in football matches for one year. The applicants appealed against the Disciplinary Board ’ s decision before the Arbitration Board, which dismissed their appeal. The Arbitration Board ’ s decision was final and not subject to any judicial review under the relevant legislation in force at the time of the decision.

The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that neither the Disciplinary Board nor the Arbitration Board satisfied the requirements of a “tribunal” insofar as these bodies were not impartial and independent. They further argue under the same provision that they did not have sufficient time to prepare their defence, that they were not afforded a public hearing and that they did not have access to the documents in the case file. They also submit that the Arbitration Board did not state the reasons on which it rejected their appeal and that despite their numerous attempts they were not able to obtain the reasoned judgment. T hey complain under Article 13 of the Convention that the decision delivered by the Arbitration Board was not subject to any judicial review before the domestic courts. Lastly, invoking Article 1 of Protocol No.1, they argue that the one ‑ year ban imposed on them constituted a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

( a) Were the Disciplinary Board and the Arbitration Board independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention taking into account the manner in which their members were selected and appointed? In that connection could the applicants ’ doubts as to the impartiality and independence of these bodies be considered justified on account of (i) their members being elected by the Board of Executives of the Turkish Football Federation (“the Board of Executives”) upon the suggestion of the President of the Turkish Football Federation; (ii) the duration of their mandate being limited to that of the mandate of the Board of Executives; and (iii) their remuneration being determined by the Board of Executives under the relevant legislation in force at the material time?

(b) Has there been a breach of the applicants ’ right to a public hearing within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the absence of a public oral hearing in the impugned disciplinary proceedings?

(c) Were the applicants afforded sufficient time and facilities to prepare their defence against the disciplinary charges directed against them? In that connection, did the applicants have access to the documents in the case file on which the Disciplinary Board and the Arbitration Board relied when delivering their decisions?

(d) Was the Arbitration Board ’ s refusal to deliver its reasoned judgment, despite several requests of the applicants, compatible with the applicants ’ right to reasoned judgment as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

As regards these complaints, the applicants are invited to provide the Court with the petitions that they addressed to the Disciplinary Board and the Arbitration Board in defence of the allegations. The Government are in turn invited to submit documents in the case file before the Turkish Football Federation which formed the basis of the decisions taken against the applicants.

2. Were the applicants deprived of their remuneration under the amateur football agreement that they had concluded with their club for a period of one year as a result of the sanctions imposed on them? If yes, can the revenue, which the applicants would have received had they not been banned from playing in football matches, be considered as a “legitimate expectation of acquiring possessions” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No.1? If so, has there been a violation of the applicants ’ rights under that provision on account of the sanctions imposed by the Turkish Football Federation?

The applicants are invited to provide the Court with the agreements that they had concluded with their club and documents evidencing the amounts that they would have received if they had not been sanctioned by the Turkish Football Federation.

3. Did the applicants have at their disposal effective remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 6 of the Conve ntion and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 as required under Article 13 of the Convention in view of the fact that the decision of the Arbitration Board confirming the sanctions imposed on the applicants was final and not subject to judicial review before domestic courts?

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

17880/11

29/12/2010

Fatih ARSLAN

04/04/1974

MuÄŸla

Ali SOYDAN

17887/11

29/12/2010

Åžaban SERÄ°N

26/05/1980

Kocaeli

Ali SOYDAN

17891/11

29/12/2010

Mehmet Erhan BERBER

22/10/1981

MuÄŸla

Ali SOYDAN