Communicated on 29 January 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 63859/12 MEDIATION BERTI SPORTS against Turkey lodged on 31 July 2012

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant company is a company registered in Monaco and its main activity is to negotiate professional football players ’ contracts. In the present case, Manisaspor , a football club based in Turkey, authorised an official of the applicant company to represent itself in the negotiations for the transfer of a football player. The applicant company, alleging that Manisaspor undertook to pay 144,000 euros (EUR) in fees for its services, brought proceedings before a civil court of first instance to recover the unpaid sum of EUR 96,000. The first-instance court held that it lacked jurisdiction on the matter and that the Dispute Resolution Board of the Turkish Football Federation (“the Dispute Resolution Board”) was competent to settle the dispute. The applicant company referred the matter to the Dispute Resolution Board, which dismissed its application on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction over claims made by legal person acting as agents, such as the applicant company. The Arbitration Board of the Turkish Football Federation (“the Arbitration Board”) upheld the Dispute Resolution Board ’ s decision. Thereafter, the applicant company sought before the Court of Cassation the reversal of the first-instance civil court ’ s judgment, but without success. Lastly, the applicant company referred the matter to the Civil Division of the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes. The court held that neither the Dispute Resolution Board nor the Arbitration Board could be considered as “tribunal” for the purposes of the applicable legislation governing its mandate and therefore the matter did not fall within its jurisdiction.

The applicant comp any complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of any judicial body or court which has jurisdiction to decide on its claim with respect to amounts unpaid by Manisaspor .

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Does the dispute in question, that is, a claim for compensation for the payment of intermediary fees, fall within the ambit of civil rights and obligations, so as to attract the ap plicability of Article 6?

2. If so, has there been a breach of the applicant company ’ s right of access to a cour t within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of there being no judicial forum competent for the determination of the applicant company ’ s dispute with Manisaspor ?