Review of ECHR decisions for 07/01/2026

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Altıner Akıncı v. Türkiye:

1. **Essence of the Decision:**

The case revolves around a Turkish beach volleyball referee, Yasemin Altıner Akıncı, who claimed that the Turkish Volleyball Federation’s (TVF) refusal to approve her appointment to international competitions and exclusion from the list of accredited referees violated her rights. The Court found that while the Sports Arbitration Board, which handled her case, was not structurally biased or lacking in independence and impartiality, it failed to provide sufficient reasoning for its decision, thus denying her a fair hearing and adequate judicial review under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Court dismissed her claim under Article 8, stating that the TVF’s decision did not have a sufficiently serious impact on her private life.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Introduction and Facts:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s subject matter, the parties involved, and a summary of the facts. It details the applicant’s career as a beach volleyball referee, the TVF’s decision to exclude her from international competitions, and the subsequent arbitration proceedings.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** This section provides an overview of the Turkish legal system concerning sports federations, arbitration, and the relevant regulations of the Turkish Volleyball Federation, the European Volleyball Confederation (CEV), and the International Volleyball Federation (FIVB). It also references a Committee of Ministers Resolution on the protection of individuals in relation to administrative authorities.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6:** The Court examines whether the Sports Arbitration Board met the requirements of independence and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It also assesses whether the Board provided adequate reasons for its decision and whether the applicant had access to judicial review.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 8:** The Court considers whether the TVF’s decision breached the applicant’s freedom to exercise a professional activity, as protected by Article 8 of the Convention.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court addresses the applicant’s claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
* **Operative Part:** The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision, declaring the complaint under Article 6 § 1 admissible, finding a violation of Article 6 § 1 due to insufficient judicial review, and dismissing the remainder of the application. It also specifies the amounts to be paid to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**

* **Applicability of Article 6 in Compulsory Arbitration:** The decision reinforces that when arbitration is compulsory, the arbitral tribunal must provide the safeguards secured by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
* **Independence and Impartiality of Tribunals:** The Court emphasizes the importance of personal and institutional independence for impartial decision-making. It assesses compliance based on statutory criteria, such as the manner of appointment of tribunal members, the duration of their term of office, and the existence of safeguards against outside pressures.
* **Duty to Provide Reasons:** The decision highlights the obligation of domestic courts to adequately state the reasons on which their decisions are based, ensuring that parties can understand the reasoning and exercise available remedies effectively.
* **Sufficiency of Judicial Review:** The Court links the question of sufficient judicial review to the reasoning given by the Sports Arbitration Board. It emphasizes that the review must be meaningful and consider whether the exercise of discretion complied with applicable laws and regulations.
* **Article 8 and Professional Activities:** The Court confirms that Article 8 can extend to professional activities but requires a certain threshold of severity in the consequences for the applicant’s private life to be engaged.

This judgment clarifies the standards for fair hearing and judicial review in compulsory sports arbitration proceedings, particularly concerning discretionary decisions made by sports federations.

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Yokuşlu v. Türkiye:

1. The case concerns a Turkish football player, Kutay Yokuşlu, who complained about the lack of independence and impartiality of the Arbitration Committee of the Turkish Football Federation (TFF). This committee dismissed his request to retract the termination notice of his contract with Altay Sports Club. The Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. The Court highlighted persistent deficiencies in the structure and operation of the TFF Arbitration Committee, despite legislative reforms aimed at addressing these issues. The Court also found that Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life) was not applicable in this case. Finally, the Court recommended that Turkey take general measures to address the structural problems affecting the independence and impartiality of the TFF Arbitration Committee.

2. The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the applicant’s complaints and the relevant articles of the Convention. It then details the facts of the case, including the circumstances surrounding the termination of the applicant’s contract and the proceedings before the TFF Arbitration Committee. The judgment proceeds to analyze the relevant legal framework and practice, focusing on legislative amendments made to address previous concerns about the Arbitration Committee’s independence. The Court then assesses the admissibility of the complaints, finding Article 6 § 1 applicable to the proceedings before the Arbitration Committee. The core of the judgment is the examination of whether the Arbitration Committee was independent and impartial. The Court considers arguments from both the applicant and the Turkish government. It analyzes various aspects of the Arbitration Committee’s structure and operation, including the appointment process, term of office, composition, immunity from legal action, and procedures for handling recusal requests. The Court concludes that, despite some improvements, deficiencies remain that undermine the Committee’s independence and impartiality. The judgment then briefly addresses the applicant’s remaining complaints under Article 6 and finds it unnecessary to examine them separately. It also rejects the applicant’s complaint under Article 8. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Articles 41 and 46 of the Convention, concerning just satisfaction and the execution of judgments. It recommends general measures to address the structural issues identified and awards the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.

3. The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the independence and impartiality of sports arbitration bodies. The Court acknowledges that while Turkey has made legislative changes to improve the TFF Arbitration Committee, these changes have not gone far enough. The Court emphasizes that the practice of newly elected TFF presidents requesting the resignation of committee members undermines the intended independence of the Arbitration Committee. The decision highlights the need for robust safeguards to protect arbitration bodies from undue influence, especially when they are resolving disputes involving decisions made by the very organizations that appoint them. This ruling underscores the importance of ensuring that compulsory arbitration proceedings, particularly in the context of sports, meet the standards of fairness and impartiality required by the European Convention on Human Rights.