CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mai 2026

.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 1 June 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 9497/25 Jose Mario DOS SANTOS MOURINHO FELIX against Türkiye lodged on 7 March 2025 communicated on 13 May 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns disciplinary sanctions imposed on the applicant by the Professional Football Disciplinary Committee (“PFDK”) of the Turkish Football Federation (“TFF”). The applicant is a Portuguese national and a well-known football coach. At the material time, he was the technical director of Fenerbahçe Sports Club. On 7 November 2024 the PFDK imposed on the applicant a one-match ban from entering the dressing room and the bench area, as well as a fine of 58,500   Turkish liras (approximately 1,590 euros (EUR)) for unsportsmanlike conduct towards the supporters of the rival team during a match played on 3   November 2024. The Disciplinary Committee also imposed an additional fine of 900,000 Turkish liras (EUR 24,550) for his statements made to the press following that match, on the grounds that they were unsportsmanlike, contrary to fair play, discredited the TFF and cast doubt on the impartiality of football referees and officials. The applicant challenged the PFDK’s decision before the Arbitration Committee of the TFF. On 8 November 2024 the Arbitration Committee upheld the PFDK’s decision, while revising the fine of 900,000 Turkish liras to 600,000 Turkish liras (EUR 16,260). Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the dispute in question had not been determined by an independent and impartial tribunal. In this respect, he argued that the amendments made to the relevant regulations concerning the Arbitration Committee of the Turkish Football Federation, following the Court’s findings in Ali Rıza and Others v.   Turkey (nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 201–223, 28 January 2020), were not effectively implemented in practice, and that the members of the Arbitration Committee continued to be dependent on the President of the Turkish Football Federation or its Board of Directors. Under the same Article, the applicant further alleged a violation of his right to a reasoned decision, arguing that the reasoned decision of the Arbitration Committee had not been notified to him. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant further complains that his right to freedom of expression was infringed by the sanctions imposed. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in its civil or criminal limb, applicable to the proceedings before the TFF (see   Ali Rıza and Others v.   Turkey , nos.   30226/10   and 4   others, §§   150 et seq., 28 January 2020)?   2.     If so, 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?   3.     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, has the Arbitration Committee’s failure to issue the reasoned decision violated the applicant’s right of access to a court and/or to a reasoned decision as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ( Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 83-4, 11   July 2017)?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, and in particular his right to impart information or ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?   5.     If so, was this interference prescribed by law and necessary within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 ( 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 perform proper balancing between the applicant’s 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?