CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 December 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 9570/23 Yasemin ALTINER AKINCI against Türkiye lodged on 22 February 2023 communicated on 21 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a professional volleyball referee registered with the Turkish Volleyball Association since 2003 and with the European and International Federation of Volleyball since 2010. She has participated in numerous national and international competitions. Her application concerns the failure of the Central Referee and Observer Committee of the Turkish Volleyball Association (“CROC”) to include her in the list of referees eligible to referee matches in national beach volleyball competitions since 2018 and in international competitions since 2020. On 16 February 2022 she filed a complaint with the Sports Arbitration Board of the Ministry of Youth and Sports to be informed of the reasons why she was not listed in the list of referees eligible to referee national and international competitions despite her qualifications and experience. She further requested damages for loss of income, resulting from not being able to referee two international competitions despite having received invitations from the International Federation of Volleyball for the beach volleyball world championship of 2021. In a decision of 10 October 2022, notified to the applicant on 1 November 2022, the Sports Arbitration Board rejected her application on the grounds that the CROC’s discretion in respect of whom to include in the list of referees was not open to review. The board further rejected her claim for damages on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, noting that civil courts were competent to rule on compensation claims arising out of disputes between referees and sports federations. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the CROC’s failure to include her in the list of referees without any justification makes it impossible for her to practice her profession as a professional referee. She complains that the Sports Arbitration Board did not satisfy the requirements of independence and impartiality guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Under the same provision, she further complains that the board’s decision did not contain adequate reasoning and that she had had no access to judicial review regarding the manner the CROC exercised its discretion. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, under its civil limb, applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey , nos.   30226/10 and 4 others, § 160, 28 January 2020)?   2.     If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   In that connection,   (i) Can the Sports Arbitration Board be regarded as a “tribunal” for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, having regard to the specific nature of sports disputes (see, mutatis mutandis , Ali Rıza and Others , cited above, §§ 175-181)?   If so, was the Sports Arbitration Board independent and impartial as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 194-200)?   (ii) Assuming that the Sports Arbitration Board cannot be regarded as an “independent and impartial tribunal” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, has the applicant’s right of access to a court been breached on account of her inability to challenge the Sports Arbitration Board’s decision before domestic courts (see   generally Ramos Nunes de Carvalho   e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos.   55391/13 and 2 others, §§ 176-186, 6   November 2018)?   (iii) Assuming that the Sports Arbitration Board is an “independent and impartial tribunal”, did its impugned decisions contain adequate reasoning with respect to the applicant’s arguments (see, among others,   Alonso Saura v.   Spai n , no. 18326/19, §§ 34-35, 8 June 2023)?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the applicant not being included in the list of referees and therefore resulting in her not being able to referee any matches since October 2020 (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 115-117, 25 September 2018, and Platini v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 526/18, § 57, 11 February 2020)?