CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 septembre 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 } Published on 6 October 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 23540/24 Ahmet KETENCİ against Türkiye lodged on 13 August 2024 communicated on 17 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged violations of Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of disciplinary sanctions imposed on the applicant, a former board member of the Fenerbahçe Sports Club. On 7 April 2024 the Galatasaray Sports Club and the Fenerbahçe Sports Club faced each other in the “Super Cup” match organised by the Turkish Football Federation (“TFF”). The Fenerbahçe football team withdrew from the pitch shortly after the start of the match. Following that incident, on 11 April 2024, the Professional Football Disciplinary Committee (“PFDC”) of the TFF fined the applicant 520,000   Turkish Liras and imposed a sixty-day suspension from all football-related activities for unsporting behaviour, on the grounds that he had given the instruction to withdraw from the pitch during the above-mentioned football match. On 13 April 2024 the Arbitration Committee of the TFF upheld the decision of the PFDC. Its reasoned decision was served on the applicant on 10   June 2024. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the decisions delivered by the PFDC and the Arbitration Committee were inadequately reasoned. Relying on the same article, the applicant also alleges that these bodies lacked independence and impartiality on account of the applicable legislation in force at the material time. Under Article 7 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the decisions of both the PFDC and the Arbitration Committee were arbitrary and involved an unforeseeable interpretation of the applicable regulations. Lastly, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant alleges that the disciplinary sanction lacked a lawful basis and imposed an excessive individual burden on him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the Disciplinary Committee and the Arbitration Committee of the TFF, which heard the applicant’s case, 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.     Did the proceedings before the Committees of the TFF meet the conditions of a fair trial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, 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)? Was their interpretation of the relevant domestic regulations arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 83, 11   July 2017)?   3.     Did the sanction imposed on the applicant constitute an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his 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)?