Riza v Turkey: European Court of Human Rights gives further guidance on establishing independent arbitral tribunals
Published 05 February 2020 By: Despina Mavromati
On 28 January 2020, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) published its Judgement in the application of Mr. Riza (a footballer), Mr Akal (a referee) and Others v. Turkey. The Judgement found that Turkey had violated Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention) as Mr. Riza and Mr Akal had not received a fair trial. The reason for this was due to structural deficiencies in the Arbitration Committee of the Turkish Football Federation (TFF), namely:
“….that the executive body of the TFF, the Board of Directors, which had always largely consisted of members or executives of football clubs, had too strong an influence over the organisation and functioning of the Arbitration Committee. Nor did TFF law provide appropriate safeguards to protect members of the Arbitration Committee from any outside pressure.” (see Press Release)
As a result, Turkey have been ordered to reform their system for settling football disputes.
Even though the case relates to football disputes in Turkey, the Judgment is likely to have a wider impact on the structure and governance of sports tribunals at other federations and in other jurisdictions. In particular, it imposes higher requirements on the “independence” of such tribunals to the extent that recourse is compulsory and there is no subsequent judicial review by an independent court. The Judgment comes after the Mutu and Pechstein judgment rendered by the ECtHR in October 2018, which related to the independence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the right to have a public hearing (for a summary of Mutu and Pechstein, please see this article).
Accordingly, this article examines:
· the facts of the case,
· the key findings of the ECtHR;
· the similarities to Mutu and Pechstein; and
· key points for sports federations on establishing independent arbitral tribunals.
Get access to this article and all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport
Already a member?
Articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts
This work was written for and first published on LawInSport.com (unless otherwise stated) and the copyright is owned by LawInSport Ltd. Permission is granted to make digital or hard copies of this work (or part, or abstracts, of it) for personal use provided copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage, and provided that all copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page (which should include the URL, company name (LawInSport), article title, author name, date of the publication and date of use) of any copies made. Copyright for components of this work owned by parties other than LawInSport must be honoured.
- Tags: Arbitration | Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) | Dispute Resolution | Football | Human Rights | Regulation | Swiss Federal Tribunal | Turkey | Turkish Football Federation
- The right to a fair hearing in sports’ cases: lessons from the ECtHR’s decision in Mutu & Pechstein
- The dichotomy and future of sports arbitration - Compelled consent
Dr. Despina Mavromati, LL.M., is an attorney (Bar of Thessaloniki / Ordre des Avocats Vaudois) practicing in the field of international sports law and arbitration. She is the founder of a Lausanne-based practice (SportLegis Lausanne) and represents athletes, clubs, and sports federations in all aspects of arbitration, trials, and drafting policies.