CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 21 July 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 14878/20 Ferhat BİNİCİ against Türkiye lodged on 9 March 2020 communicated on 3 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged violations of Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention on account of a sanction imposed on the applicant in arbitration proceedings. The applicant is a professional wrestler. On 28 March 2017 the Disciplinary Board of the Turkish Wrestling Federation (“the Disciplinary Board”) decided to ban him from participating in wrestling competitions for two years, on the grounds that he had used drugs with doping effects. Following an objection filed by the Turkish Commission Against Doping on 13   July 2017, the Disciplinary Board reviewed that decision on 5   October 2017 and increased the duration of the ban to four years. On 11   September 2019 the Arbitration Committee of the Ministry of Youth and Sports (“the Arbitration Committee”) dismissed the applicant’s objection with final effect. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the proceedings before the Arbitration Committee did not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality, and that his right to a reasoned judgment was violated. Furthermore, under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his right of access to a court was violated, arguing that the decision of the Arbitration Committee was not amenable to appeal before a domestic court. Under Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant further complains that the sanction imposed on him violated his right to respect for his private life. 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, §§ 155-61, 28 January 2020)?   2.     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 Arbitration Committee 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, §§ 171-81)?   If so, was the Arbitration Committee independent and impartial as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 194-200)?   (ii)     Assuming that the Arbitration Committee 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 his inability to challenge the Arbitration Committee’s decision before the domestic courts (see , generally, Ramos Nunes de Carvalho   e Sá v.   Portugal   [GC], nos.   55391/13 and 2 others, §§ 176-86, 6   November 2018, and Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-79, 5 April 2018)?   (iii)     Assuming that the Arbitration Committee 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 an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the impugned sanction? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Denisov v.   Ukraine   [GC], no.   76639/11, §§ 115-17, 25 September 2018)?