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 } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Published on 6 October 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 30124/24 KOÇ and FENERBAHÇE FUTBOL ANONİM ŞİRKETİ against Türkiye lodged on 24 September 2024 communicated on 17 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the applicants – the first applicant, president of the Fenerbahçe Sports Club, and the second applicant, the club itself – by the Professional Football Disciplinary Committee (“PFDC”) of the Turkish Football Federation (“TFF”). On 23 May 2024 the applicant club, which was the visiting team in a match against the Galatasaray Sports Club at the Ali Sami Yen Sports Complex on 19   May 2024, was fined by the PFDC 1,949,500 Turkish Liras (TRY) for various acts including vandalism, offensive chanting, unsportsmanlike behaviour, the Fenerbahçe football team’s failure to comply with the match timeline during half-time and statements published through Fenerbahçe’s official social media accounts. The PFDC also imposed a spectator ban by blocking the electronic season tickets of all individuals who had sat in the areas from which the offensive chants had originated, preventing them from attending the club’s next away match. Furthermore, the PFDC sanctioned the applicant club in relation to allegedly violent acts committed by its officials at the stadium following the match. The PFDC also fined the first applicant TRY 780,000 and issued a 90-day ban prohibiting him from participating in any football-related activities ( hak mahrumiyeti cezası ) on account of the following statements he had made following the match in question, which were published through Fenerbahçe’s official social media accounts: “Today, we showed the inglorious, the dishonourable, the thieves and the scoundrels who the real champions is. ... We’re this close to bringing the whole system crashing down... This entire design, this theatre you have set up to make one team champion, to relegate some teams and keep others in the league... God knows who they will appoint next week (as referee), and what kind of setups they will put in place... If they stumble there, though I truly don’t believe the system would ever allow that to happen.” (“ Biz bugün gerçek şampiyonun kim olduğunu şerefsizlere, haysiyetsizlere, hırsızlara, alçaklara gösterdik. ... Sistemi yerle bir etmeye az kaldı .... Bir takımı şampiyon yapmak için, bazı takımları düşürüp bazı takımları ligde tutmak için kurgulamış olduğunuz dizayn, tiyatro. ... Allah bilir haftaya (hakem olarak) kimi atayacaklar, ne kurgular yapacaklar. ... Orada tökezlerlerse, ama sistemin hiç ama hiç buna müsaade edeceğini sanmıyorum. ”) On 25 May 2024 the applicants’ objections to these disciplinary sanctions were rejected by the Arbitration Committee. On the date of introduction of the present individual application, the Arbitration Committee’s reasoned decision had not yet been notified to the applicants. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, both applicants complain that the decisions delivered by the PFDC and the Arbitration Committee were inadequately reasoned. Relying on the same Article, the applicants also allege that these bodies lacked independence and impartiality on account of the applicable legislation in force at the material time. Under Article 10 of the Convention, the applicants additionally complain that the sanctions imposed infringed their right to freedom of expression. Lastly, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants submit 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. 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.     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)?   3.     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 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?   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)?