Quick answer
In Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey (no. 30226/10 and others, 28 January 2020), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of two applicants because the Arbitration Committee of the Turkish Football Federation lacked independence and impartiality. The Court also held that Türkiye was to take general measures to address the underlying systemic problem.
Background and facts
The first applicant was a professional footballer who had signed an employment contract with a club in the top Turkish league, effective from January 2006. A dispute arose over the terms and over his departure from the club in January 2008, and the club imposed substantial fines. Under the Federation’s rules the dispute fell to be determined by its own dispute-resolution bodies, with the Arbitration Committee deciding at final instance and no recourse to the ordinary courts.
Five applications were examined together. Three were declared inadmissible; the complaints of the first and fifth applicants concerning the independence and impartiality of the Arbitration Committee were declared admissible and examined on the merits.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court’s own summary of the judgment identifies structural deficiencies in the Arbitration Committee, in particular the extensive powers that the Federation’s Board of Directors held in relation to it. Where a body of that kind determines disputes at final instance, and where the parties cannot take the matter to a court, the arrangements for appointment, tenure and control of its members have to provide genuine guarantees. They did not.
Because that finding disposed of the matter, the Court held that it was not necessary to examine the fifth applicant’s remaining complaints concerning the fairness of the proceedings and access to a court.
The judgment
- Unanimously, a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the first and fifth applicants on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the Arbitration Committee.
- Unanimously, the respondent State was to take general measures to address the underlying systemic problem.
- Three of the joined applications were declared inadmissible.
- Just satisfaction included EUR 12,500 to the first applicant.
What this means for athletes and counsel
The judgment is the clearest authority on compulsory federation arbitration where no court route exists at all. Its reasoning is institutional: what matters is how the deciding body is composed and controlled, not whether the particular panel behaved fairly. That makes the evidence different from an ordinary fairness complaint — statutes, appointment rules and the powers of the governing body do the work.
It should not be read as a template. The finding concerns one federation’s arrangements at a particular time; a structure elsewhere has to be analysed on its own terms, as the later judgment in Yokuşlu v. Türkiye shows even for the same body after reform. Where a similar structure is in issue, our sports arbitration practice sets out how such a complaint is assessed.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Yokuşlu v. Türkiye: Football Arbitration and Article 6 After Reform
- Semenya v. Switzerland: Article 6, CAS Arbitration and Swiss Judicial Review
- Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland: Fair Hearing in Sports Arbitration
- Străin and Others v. Romania
- Brumărescu v. Romania
- Rotaru v. Romania
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, check the admissibility criteria, or get a free assessment of your case.
Read the full judgment on HUDOC (official ECHR database)
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this judgment apply to CAS?
No. It concerns the Turkish Football Federation’s own Arbitration Committee, which decided disputes at final instance without access to the courts. CAS operates in a different institutional and legal setting, examined by the Court in Mutu and Pechstein.
What are “general measures”?
Steps the State must take beyond the individual case to remove the cause of the violation — here, reform of the arbitration structure. Execution is supervised by the Committee of Ministers.