CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mars 2025

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 24 March 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 9875/24 FENERBAHÇE FUTBOL ANONİM ŞİRKETİ against Türkiye and 6 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 5 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant company is a professional football sports club, registered in 1998 and based in Istanbul. Its applications concern the sanctions imposed on it by the Professional Football Disciplinary Committee of the Turkish Football Federation ( Türkiye Futbol Federasyonu Profesyonel Futbol Disiplin Kurulu – “the PFDC”) for various breaches of discipline and safety committed by its supporters such as offensive chanting, acts of vandalism and blocking of stairways during away and home matches played by the Fenerbahçe Football Club. In the proceedings which concern the subject matter of the application no. 24982/24, the applicant club was also sanctioned for unsportsmanlike conduct for having printed the words “fair play” and “fair competition” on the stadium turf. The summary of the facts for each application, as submitted by the applicant company, is provided in the Appendix. The Arbitration Committee of the Turkish Football Federation dismissed the applicant company’s objections to those sanctions on the dates indicated in the Appendix and in some cases it had not yet delivered a reasoned decision on the applicant company on the date of the lodging of the applications. The applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the disputes in question were not decided by an independent and impartial tribunal. It argues in this respect that the amendments made to the relevant regulations concerning the Arbitration Committee of the Turkish Football Federation after the findings of the Court in the case of Ali Rıza and Others v.   Turkey (nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 201-223, 28 January 2020) are not observed in practice and that the members of the Arbitration Committee continue to be dependent on President of the Turkish Football Federation or the Board of Directors. Regarding the proceedings which are the subject-matter of the application no. 9875/24, the applicant company further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the failure of the Arbitration Committee to hold a hearing, to examine the digital evidence and to render a reasoned decision. Lastly, the applicant company complains under Article 7 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of the proceedings which form the subject matter of all applications except for application no. 9875/24 that it was sanctioned for the behaviour of supporters on whom it exercised no control and that the fines imposed by the PFDC, including the one concerning unsportsmanlike conduct, lacked a lawful basis while also amounting to an excessive individual burden which upset the fair balance that must be maintained between the demands of the general interest of the football community and the requirements of the protection of the right to property. COMMON QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in its civil or criminal limb, applicable to the proceedings before the Turkish Football Federation (“TFF”) (see Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey , nos. 30226/10 and 4   others, §§   150 et seq., 28 January 2020)?   2.     Did the proceedings before the Arbitration Committee satisfy the requirements of independence and impartiality in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, regard being had in particular to the amendments to the relevant legislation which entered into force following the Court’s findings in Ali Rıza and Others (cited above, §§   194-223)? ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION NO.   9875/24 3.     Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular,   (a)     Were the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings respected as regards the applicant company’s right to effectively participate in the proceedings? Was it given an opportunity to present evidence and was that evidence or its relevance examined in the proceedings before the PFDC and/or the Arbitration Committee (see,   among others, Dombo Beheer B.V. v.   the Netherlands , 27   October 1993, §§ 31-35, Series A no. 274)?   (b)     Has there been a public hearing in the present case as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v.   Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, §§ 187-192, 6 November 2018)?   (c)     Was the applicant company’s right to a reasoned decision respected in view of the alleged failure of the Arbitration Committee to deliver a reasoned decision (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, §   26, ECHR 1999-I)? ADDITIONAL QUESTION IN RESPECT OF ALL APPLICATIONS EXCEPT FOR APPLICATION NO. 9875/24 4.     Did the fines imposed on the applicant company constitute an interference with its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, was that interference lawful and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties (see generally Konstantin Stefanov v.   Bulgaria , no. 35399/05, §§   53-61, 27   October 2015)?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Case name Represented by Facts as submitted by the applicant company 1. 9875/24 01/04/2024 Fenerbahçe Futbol Anonim Şirketi v. Türkiye Ali TOPUZ The applicant company, which was the visiting team in a match played at the Yeni Adana Stadium on 12 November 2023, was fined, inter alia , 224,000 and 105,000 Turkish Liras (TRY) respectively for acts of vandalism and blocking stairways by Fenerbahçe supporters. On 23 November 2023 the applicant company lodged an objection concerning these fines before the Arbitration Committee and requested a hearing. It argued that the PFDC had decided solely based on the observer reports without examining the digital evidence submitted by it. It also argued that since it was the visiting club, it had had no authority or control with respect to the incident of blocking of stairways. On 1   December 2023 the Arbitration Committee dismissed the applicant company’s objections and upheld the fines without holding a hearing. Its reasoned decision was not communicated to the applicant company. 2. 17000/24 24/05/2024 Fenerbahçe Futbol Anonim Şirketi v. Türkiye Alper PİRŞEN The applicant company, which was the visiting team in a match played at the Gaziantep Kalyon Stadium on 14 January 2024, was fined TRY 168,000 and 195,000 respectively for acts of vandalism, throwing of lighters and blocking stairways by Fenerbahçe supporters. On 25 January 2024 the applicant company lodged an objection concerning those fines before the Arbitration Committee, arguing that the imposition of strict liability for acts of supporters in an away match went against the established international rules and practices especially in view of the fact that the visiting club had no control over the organisation of the match. Moreover, it noted that clubs should not be held responsible for the acts of its supporters when those individuals who breach security rules could easily be identified with technological means. On 26 January 2024 the Arbitration Committee dismissed the applicant company’s objections. Its reasoned decision was communicated to the applicant company on 5 March 2024. The Arbitration Committee considered that irrespective of whether a club was the host or the visiting team, it was strictly liable for the acts of its supporters in breach of security and discipline rules. One member of the Arbitration Committee partly dissented, considering that a visiting club could not be held responsible for the blocking of stairways by supporters unless it could be demonstrated that the host club had not been negligent in any way in the organisation of the match, which had not been the case in the present dispute. 3. 17059/24 05/06/2024 Fenerbahçe Futbol Anonim Şirketi v. Türkiye Alper PİRŞEN The applicant company, which was the visiting team in a match played at the Gaziantep Kalyon Stadium on 7 February 2024, was given a warning for offensive chanting of Fenerbahçe supporters, and fined 112,000 and 240,000 Turkish Liras (TRY) respectively for acts of vandalism and blocking stairways by its supporters. On 20 February 2024 the applicant company objected to those sanctions before the Arbitration Committee reiterating its arguments with respect to the imposition of strict liability on part of the behaviour of its supporters being unjustified especially in a context when the club in question is a visiting team who exercised no control over the organisation of the match or the stadium itself. It also argued that the individual supporters in breach of football discipline could easily be identified by technological means. On 23 February 2024 the Arbitration Committee dismissed the applicant company’s objections and upheld the warning and the fines. Two members of the Arbitration Committee partly dissented, considering that a visiting club could not be held responsible for blocking of stairways by supporters unless it could be demonstrated that the host club had not been negligent in any way in the organisation of the match, which had not been the case in the present dispute. 4. 21955/24 22/07/2024 Fenerbahçe Futbol Anonim Şirketi v. Türkiye Alper PİRŞEN The applicant company, which was the host club in a match played at the Şükrü Saracoğlu Stadium in Istanbul on 10 March 2024, was fined, inter alia , 112,000 TRY for offensive chanting of its supporters. The PFDC also banned all spectators who sat in the areas where the offensive chants originated from entering the next home match by blocking their electronic season tickets. On 21 March 2024 the applicant company objected to the fine of 112,000 TRY and the PFDC’s decision to ban all spectators sitting in the same seating area rather than the actual individuals who committed the breach in question. The applicant company reiterated its arguments to the effect that strict liability of clubs for behaviours on part of supporters in a match was unjustified since those individuals could be identified individually. On 22   March 2024 the Arbitration Committee dismissed the applicant company’s objections and upheld the fines. Its reasoned decision was not communicated to the applicant company. 5. 21957/24 22/07/2024 Fenerbahçe Futbol Anonim Şirketi v. Türkiye Alper PİRŞEN The applicant company, which was the visiting team in a match played at the Mersin Stadium on 2 March 2024, was fined 112,000 and 285,000 Turkish Liras (TRY) respectively for acts of vandalism and blocking stairways by Fenerbahçe supporters. On 14 March 2024 the applicant company objected to those sanctions before the Arbitration Committee reiterating its arguments with respect to the imposition of strict liability to be unjustified for acts of supporters, in a context when the club in question is a visiting team who exercised no control over the organisation of the match or the stadium. It also argued that the individual supporters in breach of football discipline could easily be identified by technological means. On 22 March 2024 the Arbitration Committee dismissed the applicant company’s objections and upheld the fines. A member of the Arbitration Committee partly dissented, considering that a visiting club could not be held responsible for blocking of stairways by supporters unless it could be demonstrated that the host club had not been negligent in any way in the organisation of the match, which had not been the case in the present dispute. 6. 24982/24 19/08/2024 Fenerbahçe Futbol Anonim Şirketi v. Türkiye Alper PİRŞEN The applicant company, which was the host club in a match played at the Şükrü Saracoğlu Stadium in Istanbul on 3 April 2024, was fined 160,000 TRY for unsportsmanlike conduct for having painted on the stadium turf the statements of “fair play” and “fair competition”. The PFDC also found that there had been offensive chanting during the match and therefore banned all spectators who sat in the areas where the offensive chants originated from entering the next home match by blocking their electronic season tickets. On 16 April 2024 the applicant company objected to those sanctions before the Arbitration Committee, arguing that they lacked a basis in law and were in any event disproportionate. In respect of offensive chanting during the match, the company reiterated its arguments to the effect that individuals responsible for the event should have been sanctioned rather than the entire seating areas. As regards the painting of the turf, it noted that the statements in question pursued the purpose of encouraging sportsmanlike conduct and of reminding everyone in the football community not to engage in acts of violence or other inappropriate behaviour. On 19   April 2024 the Arbitration Committee dismissed the applicant company’s objections and upheld the sanctions in question. Its reasoned decision was not communicated to the applicant company. 7. 27505/24 18/09/2024 Fenerbahçe Futbol Anonim Şirketi v. Türkiye Alper PİRŞEN The applicant company, which was the visiting team in a match played at the Medaş Konya Stadium on 6 May 2024, was fined 112,000 and 560,000 Turkish Liras (TRY) respectively for acts of vandalism and offensive chanting by Fenerbahçe supporters. The PFDC also banned all spectators who sat in the areas where the offensive chants originated from entering the next home match by blocking their electronic season tickets. On 8 May 2024 the applicant company objected to those sanctions before the Arbitration Committee, reiterating its arguments to the effect that strict liability of clubs for behaviour on part of supporters in a match was unjustified since those individuals could be identified individually. On 18 May 2024 the Arbitration Committee dismissed the applicant company’s objections and upheld the sanctions. Its reasoned decision was not communicated to the applicant company.