CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 11 December 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 22421/16 Metin ÇEKER against Türkiye lodged on 28 March 2016 communicated on 20 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the disciplinary sanction imposed on the applicant, who was the president of the Turkish Automobile Sports Federation (TOSFED) at the relevant time, and the ensuing proceedings. A   disciplinary investigation was conducted by the Ministry of Youth and Sports (“the Disciplinary Committee”) in respect of irregularities in some of the procurement procedures during the applicant’s term of office. The Disciplinary Committee found the applicant to be liable and suspended him for twenty-four months for violation of disciplinary rules. 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, and requested, inter alia , that his witnesses be heard. In written proceedings, the board partly allowed the applicant’s objection and reduced the applicant’s suspension to eighteen months. The board’s decision, which became final on 3 November 2016, was not subject to any judicial review before ordinary courts under Article 59 of the Turkish Constitution. The applicant complains that the proceedings before the Sports Arbitration Board did not satisfy the requirements of impartiality guaranteed by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. Under the same provision, he further complains that a) the board’s decision contained no reasoning, b) his request to have his witnesses heard was not considered and that c) he had had no access to judicial review. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, under its civil limb, applicable to the disciplinary proceedings in the present case (see, for example, Sedat Doğan v. Turkey , no. 48909/14, § 21, 18 May 2021)?   If so, 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 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 v.   Turkey , nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 175-181, 28 January 2020)?   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 “impartial tribunal” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, has the applicant’s right of access to a court been breached on account of his 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 “impartial tribunal”, did its impugned decisions contain adequate reasoning with respect to the applicant’s objections (see, among others,   Alonso Saura v.   Spai n , no.   18326/19, §§ 34-35, 8 June 2023)? Moreover, is the fact that the board did not give a decision on the applicant’s request to have his witnesses called contrary to the requirements of a fair trial (see Wierzbicki v.   Poland , no.   24541/94, § 45, 18 June 2002 and Carmel Saliba v.   Malta , no.   24221/13, § 77, 29 November 2016)?