IN THE SPOTLIGHT
European Court of Human Rights
Sports arbitration and Article 6 ECHR: reasoning matters
The European Court of Human Rights, in Altiner Akinci v. Turkiye of 6 January 2026, delivers a clear message for sports dispute-resolution systems: a fair trial requires properly reasoned decisions.
The case concerned a Turkish international beach-volleyball referee whose exclusion from international appointments was upheld by the national Sports Arbitration Board, whose decisions were final and not subject to ordinary judicial review.
While the Court found no violation regarding the independence or impartiality of the Sports Arbitration Board, it identified a violation of Article 6 §1 due to the absence of sufficient reasoning. The arbitral body failed to explain the criteria applied by the federation, did not address the applicant's key arguments, and did not meaningfully assess whether the federation's broad discretion had been exercised lawfully and non-arbitrarily.
The judgment underscores a crucial principle: even where compulsory sports arbitration is institutionally acceptable, it must offer effective judicial scrutiny. Formal review is not enough. When careers are affected by discretionary decisions, arbitration bodies must show why those decisions are justified. Without clear, reasoned decisions, compulsory sports arbitration risks falling short of the Convention's fair-trial guarantees.
Yokuslu v. Turkiye: independence of sports arbitration under Article 6
In Yokuslu v. Turkiye (6 January 2026), the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 6 paragraph 1 ECHR due to the lack of independence and impartiality of the Turkish Football Federation's (TFF) Arbitration Committee in a system of mandatory sports arbitration.
The Court gave particular weight to the public statements and actions of the TFF President, who in 2022 and 2024 called on all committee members to resign after elections, despite statutory four-year terms. In 2024, the President used the proverb "a horse neighs according to its rider", reinforcing the perception that committees were expected to follow the executive. The resulting resignations and reappointments undermined the appearance of independence.
Although legislative reforms had strengthened formal safeguards, the Court held that executive practice prevailed over law in reality. Convention rights must be practical and effective, not merely formal—especially where arbitration reviews decisions of the appointing authority itself.
PUBLICATIONS
