CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 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 } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sCBC20640 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 22 September 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 32836/23 Ahmet KETENCİ against Türkiye and 10 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 4 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern various disciplinary sanctions imposed on the applicants by the Professional Football Disciplinary Committee (“PFDK”) and the Arbitration Committee of the Turkish Football Federation (“TFF”) on account of statements made by the chairmen and board members of the Fenerbahçe Sports Club, Beşiktaş Gymnastics Club and İstanbulspor Sports Club (see the Appendix for further details). Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants, except for the applicant in application no. 18729/24, complain that the decisions delivered by the TFF’s Disciplinary Committee and Arbitration Committee were inadequately reasoned. Based on the same article, all the applicants allege that these bodies lacked independence and impartiality due to the relevant legislation in force at the material time. They also argue that the modifications made to the statutes of the TFF in 2022 failed to provide sufficient guarantees to ensure the independence and impartiality of those bodies. Invoking Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, all the applicants further complain that their right to freedom of expression was infringed by the sanctions imposed. Lastly, some of the applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention that the fines imposed by the PFDK lacked a lawful basis while also amounting to an excessive 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.     Were the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee of the TFF, which heard the applicants’ cases, independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ali Rıza and Others v.   Turkey , nos.   30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 150-61 and 194-222, 28   January 2020; Sedat Doğan v. Turkey , no.   48909/14, §§ 20-21 and 27, 18   May 2021; Naki and AMED Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü Derneği v.   Turkey , no.   48924/16, §   26, 18 May 2021; and İbrahim Tokmak v.   Turkey , no.   54540/16, §   22, 18   May 2021)? Additionally, did the modifications to the statutes of the TFF adopted on 16 June 2022 provide sufficient guarantees of the independence and impartiality of both the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, and in particular their right to impart information or ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention because of the sanctions imposed on them by the TFF authorities?   If so, was this interference prescribed by law and necessary within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 (see Sedat Doğan , cited above, §§ 35-43; Naki and   AMED Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü Derneği , cited above, §§   32-38; and İbrahim Tokmak , cited above, §§ 30-37)?   In particular, did the national authorities carry out, in their decisions in the present cases, a sufficient examination and a proper balancing between the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and other interests at stake in the light of the criteria set out and applied by the Court in cases concerning freedom of expression? ADDITIONAL QUESTION IN RESPECT OF ALL APPLICATIONS EXCEPT FOR APPLICATION No.   18729/24 3.     Were the decisions of the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee of the TFF adequately reasoned (see   García Ruiz v.   Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I)? ADDITIONAL QUESTION IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATIONS Nos.   12339/24, 12826/24, 13534/24, 23544/24 AND 28650/24 4.     Did the fines imposed on the applicants constitute an interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their 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 applicants 1. 32836/23 16/08/2023     Ketenci v.   Türkiye Ceren PEKER The applicant, then board member of the Fenerbahçe Sports Club, was fined by the PFDK 50.000 Turkish Liras (TRY) for the offence of unsporting behaviour as set out in Article   36 of the Football Disciplinary Directives. The sanction was based on the applicant’s acts and words towards the referees during the half-time break of a football match between Fenerbahçe and Ankaragücü at the Şükrü Saracıoğlu Stadium in Istanbul on 15   April 2023. The applicant was also given a 21-day ban prohibiting him from participating in any football-related activities ( hak mahrumiyeti cezası ). On 24 April 2023 the applicant’s objection to these disciplinary sanctions before the Arbitration Committee was rejected. The Arbitration Committee’s reasoned decision was not communicated to the applicant. 2. 33027/23   16/08/2023 Baki v.   Türkiye Ceren PEKER The applicant, then board member of the Fenerbahçe Sports Club, was fined by the PFDK 50,000   TRY for the offence of unsporting behaviour as set out in Article 36 of the Football Disciplinary Directives. The sanction was based on the applicant’s acts and words towards the referees during the half-time break of a football match between Fenerbahçe and Ankaragücü at the Şükrü Saracıoğlu Stadium in Istanbul on 15   April 2023. The applicant was also given a 21-day ban prohibiting him from participating in any football-related activities ( hak mahrumiyeti cezası ). On 24 April 2023 the applicant’s objection to these disciplinary sanctions before the Arbitration Committee was rejected. The Arbitration Committee’s reasoned decision was not communicated to the applicant. 3. 4733/24   06/02/2024 Koç v.   Türkiye Bensu ATLAHAN The applicant is the president of the Fenerbahçe Sports Club. On 10 October 2023 the PFDK fined the applicant 210,000 TRY, and imposed a 45-day ban prohibiting him from participating in any football-related activities ( hak mahrumiyeti cezası ), on the grounds that the statements he had made during a television programme broadcasted on 4 October 2023 had contained unsporting behaviour and inappropriate words concerning referees under Articles   36 and 38 of the Football Disciplinary Directives. Following the applicant’s objection, the Arbitration Committee decided that the alleged acts had only constituted the disciplinary offence of unsporting behaviour, and accordingly modified the sanction to a fine of 100,000   TRY and a 21-day ban on participating in football-related activities. Its reasoned decision was communicated to the applicant on 12 March 2024. 4. 10585/24   01/04/2024 Koç v.   Türkiye Alper PİRŞEN The applicant is the president of the Fenerbahçe Sports Club. On 16 November 2023 the PFDK imposed a fine of 210,000 Turkish Liras on the applicant. It further imposed a 45-day ban prohibiting him from participating in any football-related activities ( hak mahrumiyeti cezası ). The PFDK held that the statements he had made during (i) a television programme broadcasted on 3 November 2023 and (ii) a high council board meeting of the Fenerbahçe Sports Club had contained unsporting behaviour and inappropriate words concerning referees under Articles 36 and 38 of the Football Disciplinary Directives. On 1 December 2023 the Arbitration Committee upheld the PFDK’s decision. On 20   February 2024 the reasoned decision was communicated to the applicant. 5. 10948/24   05/04/2024 Koç and Fenerbahçe Futbol Anonim Şirketi v.   Türkiye Alper PİRŞEN The first applicant is the chairman of the Fenerbahçe Sports Club. The second applicant is Fenerbahçe Futbol Anonim Şirketi. On 23   November 2023, due to a press release published on the official website of the Fenerbahçe Sports Club on 17 November 2023, the PFDK sanctioned the first applicant with a 45-day ban prohibiting him from participating in any football-related activities ( hak mahrumiyeti cezası ) and a fine of 350,000   TRY for unsportsmanlike conduct by making unfavourable statements about referees. The PFDK also sanctioned the second applicant with a fine of 600,000 TRY for publishing the press release. The PFDK also sanctioned the first applicant due to his statements to the press on 9 November 2023, with a 45-day ban and a fine of 350,000   TRY for unsportsmanlike conduct by making unfavourable statements about referees. On 8   December 2023 the Arbitration Committee upheld most parts of the PFDK’s decision, except for the first applicant’s penalty for his statements dated 17   November 2023, where it reduced his sanction to a 30-day ban and a fine of 250,000   TRY. The reasoned decision of the Arbitration Committee had not yet been communicated on the application’s date of introduction. 6. 12339/24   05/04/2024 Ketenci and Fenerbahçe Futbol Anonim Şirketi v.   Türkiye Alper PİRŞEN On 30 November 2023 the PFDK imposed on the first applicant Ahmet Ketenci, then board member of the Fenerbahçe Sports Club, which is the second applicant, a disciplinary sanction of 39,000   TRY for unsporting behaviour. It further imposed a disciplinary sanction of 400,000   TRY on the second applicant for publishing the same offence. The sanctions were based on Ahmet Ketenci’s statements published on the official website of the Fenerbahçe Sports Club. On 8 December 2023 the Arbitration Committee upheld the sanctions. Its reasoned decision was communicated to the applicants on 20   February 2024. 7. 12826/24   02/05/2024 Baki v.   Türkiye Alper PİRŞEN The applicant was a board member of the Fenerbahçe Sports Club at the material time. On 28   December 2023 the PFDK fined the applicant 200,000 Turkish Liras, on the grounds that the statements he had made in a broadcast on a Youtube channel had contained inappropriate words concerning referees under Articles 38 of the Football Disciplinary Directives. On 5 January 2024 the Arbitration Committee upheld the sanction. Its reasoned decision was communicated to the applicants on 5 March 2024. 8. 13534/24   22/04/2024 Kızılhan and Fenerbahçe Futbol Anonim Şirketi v.   Türkiye Alper PİRŞEN On 13 April 2023 the PFDK imposed on the first applicant Burak Çağlan Kızılhan, then board member of the Fenerbahçe Sports Club, which is the second applicant, a disciplinary sanction of 400,000   TRY for making inappropriate statements concerning referees. It further imposed a disciplinary sanction of 400,000   TRY on the second applicant for the same offence. The sanction was based on Burak Çağlan Kızılhan’s statements published on the official website of the Fenerbahçe Sports Club. On 22   December 2023 the Arbitration Committee upheld the decision of the PFDK. Its reasoned decision was communicated to the applicant on 21 February 2024. 9. 18729/24   28/06/2024 Arat v.   Türkiye Muhammed Emin ÖZKURT The applicant was the president of the Beşiktaş Gymnastics Club at the material time. On 7   March 2024 the PFDK imposed a disciplinary sanction of 400,000 Turkish Liras on the applicant for making inappropriate statements concerning referees under Article 38 of the Football Disciplinary Directive. The sanction was based on a post shared by the club’s official social media accounts following a football match between Beşiktaş and Galatasaray. On 15   March 2024 the Arbitration Committee upheld the PFDK’s decision. 10. 23544/24   13/08/2024 Sarıalioğlu and İstanbul Spor Faaliyetleri Anonim Şirketi v.   Türkiye Volkan ÖZCAN The first applicant, Ecmel Faik Sarıalioğlu, was the president of the Istanbulspor Football Club, which is the second applicant. On 9 May 2024 the PFDK imposed a disciplinary fine of 400,000   TRY on the first applicant. It also imposed 45-day ban prohibiting him from participating in any football-related activities ( hak mahrumiyeti cezası ). The sanctions were based on the alleged unsportsmanlike nature of the statements which Mr Sarıalioğlu had made during a press conference. On 10 May 2024 the Arbitration Committee upheld the PFDK’s decision. The final reasoned decision had not yet been communicated to the applicants on the introduction date of their individual application. 11. 28650/24   18/09/2024 Koç and Fenerbahçe Futbol Anonim Şirketi v.   Türkiye Alper PİRŞEN The first applicant is the chairman of the Fenerbahçe Sports Club. The second applicant is Fenerbahçe Futbol Anonim Şirketi. On 9   May 2024 the PFDK imposed a fine of 520,000   TRY on the first applicant. It further imposed a 60-day ban prohibiting him from participating in any football-related activities ( hak mahrumiyeti cezası ). The second applicant was also given a fine of 400,000   TRY. The sanctions were based on a press statement of the first applicant made via the official Youtube account of the Fenerbahçe Sports Club. On 20   May 2024 the Arbitration Committee upheld the PFDK’s decision. The final reasoned decision had not yet been communicated to the applicants on the introduction date of their individual application.