Probleme aus der Sportrechtlichen Praxis in der Türkei im Hinblick auf dıe Europaischen Menschenrechtsstandards und Lösungvorschlage

Öz

Sugestions and Disputes Arised from Sports Law Practices in Türkiye in the Respect of European Human Rights Standards

Öz

Whilst the question of human rights in the “lex sportiva”, considered as an autonomous, “sui generis” structure, has been discussed in academic platforms for a long time, the Mutu and Pechstein decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2018 has created a general framework answer to these and related questions that have been asked and discussed for many years. In other words, the Mutu and Pechstein Decision has also been a milestone for the practice of sports law in the Republic of Türkiye. The Mutu and Pechstein Decision became as a pilot decision that sports governing bodies should not neglect and respect human rights and protect human rights at every stage. This respect and approach should include the management process of sports activities, the disciplinary process, and the arbitration process, which is the place for resolving disputes. With this decision, some boundaries have been elucidated and now a discussion is being held on what more can be done to respect and protect human rights and how much the content can be eloborated in “lex sportiva”. The reasons discussed in the ECHR's Mutu and Pechtstein Decision (disagreements between the judges) were the legal reference for the violation decisions made in 2020 and 2021 as to the Republic of Türkiye. The violation reasons in the Ali Rıza and Serkan Akal applications made against Republic of Türkiye after the Mutu and Pechstein Decision has provided the legal basis for other violation decisions regarding the Republic of Türkiye. The current violation decisions are also a general projection of the violation decisions issued by the European Court of Human Rights againist the Republic of Türkiye. In the study, sports law practices in the Republic of Türkiye were examined in the scope of European Human Rights Standard. The debates, disputes arising from the practice of sports law in the Republic of Türkiye were determined based on the applications made by Sedat Doğan, İbrahim Tokmak, Deniz Naki and Amedspor, İlhan Ekşioğlu, Şekip Mosturoğlu, Ali Rıza, Serkan Akal and the violation cases decided by the Court. Based on these decisions; the problems, disputes and recommendations identified in the decisions on violations of human rights in sports justice for our country, which is member of the Council of Europe, were focused on.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Right to a fair trial
• right to respect for amily and private life
• lex sportiva
• freedom of expression
• European Court of Human Rights

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Standardı Açısından Türkiye’de Spor Hukuku Uygulamasından Kaynaklanan Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri

Öz

İnsan haklarının “lex sportiva”daki yeri, akademik çevrelerde 2018 yılına kadar tartışılmıştır. Ancak Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin birleştirerek 2018 yılında karara bağladığı Mutu ve Pechstein dosyaları, yanıtı aranan ve tartışılan sorulara genel bir çerçeve oluşturmuştur. Mutu ve Pechstein Kararı, sadece Avrupa Konseyi nezdinde değil, Avrupa Konseyi sınırlarını da aşmıştır. Bu karar, spor hukuku uygulamalarında insan haklarına saygı ve insan haklarının korunmasına ilişkin bir “leading case” işlevi görmüştür. AİHM’nin Mutu ve Pechtstein Kararı’nda tartışılan gerekçeler, 2020 ve 2021 yılında karara bağlanan Türkiye Cumhuriyeti ile ilgili ihlal kararlarının da hukuki dayanağı olmuştur. Sedat Doğan, İbrahim Tokmak, Deniz Naki ve Amedspor, İlhan Ekşioğlu, Şekip Mosturoğlu, Ali Rıza ve Serkan Akal’ın başvuruları hakkında verilen ihlal kararları çalışmada temel alınmıştır. Bahsedilen başvurularla ilgili verilen kararlardaki gerekçelere göre Avrupa Konseyi üyesi olan ülkemizdeki “spor adaleti” ile ilgili sorunlar ve öneriler belirlenmiştir. “Avrupa İnsan Hakları Standardı” temelli spor adaleti, spor uyuşmazlıklarında Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin uygulama alanı, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin Konsey üyesi olarak yükümlülükleri, uyumlaştırma çalışmaları ve yapılması gerekenler çalışmada tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Adil yargılanma hakkı
• özel ve aile hayatına saygı hakkı
• lex sportiva
• ifade özgürlüğü
• Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi

Kaynakça

1. AKANDJI-KOMBE Jean-Francois, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi kapsamında pozitif yükümlülükler, Council of Europe, 1. Baskı, Belçika, 2008.
2. ARCHIPEL Giulio Palermo/ SOKOLOVSKAYA Anna, “Independence of CAS vis-à-vis its Funders and Repeat Users of its Services”, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, Güncellenme Tarihi: 25 Mayıs 2018, (Çevrimiçi) https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/05/25/independence-cas-vis-vis-funders-repeat-users-services/ , ( Erişim Tarihi:18/08/2024).
3. ARGASEALA Ruxandra, “(In)Applicability of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in Sports Disciplinary and Arbitration Procedures”, 25/11/2021, Romanian Lawyers Week, (Çevrimiçi) (In)Applicability of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in Sports Disciplinary and Arbitration Procedures | Romanian Lawyers Week (juridice.ro) (Erişim Tarihi: 28/08/2024).
4. BADDALEY Margarate, “The extraordinary autonomy of sports bodies under Swiss law: lessons to be drawn”, The International Sports Law Journal, Aralık 2020, Volume 20, 3–17.
5. CANDAN Tolga, “Briç Kart Oyunu Bir Spor Dalı mıdır? Avrupa Birliği Açısından Bir Değerlendirme”, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Dergisi, Yıl 2021, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 1, 99 – 133.
6. CANDAN Tolga, “Avrupa Birliği’nin Spor Alanında Düzenleme Yapma Yetkisinin Kapsamı ve Sınırları”, Yıl 2018, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 237 – 258.
7. Centre for Sport and Human Rights MSE PLATFORM TASK, CHAMPIONING HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE GOVERNANCE OF SPORTS BODIES, 2018.
8. CORNU Pierre/ SABRINA Robert-Cuendet /LAURENT Vidal, Human Rights Protection in the Context of Sports Organisations’ Disciplinary and Arbitration Procedures Ağustos 2018.

9. CORNU Pierre/ SABRINA Robert-Cuendet /LAURENT Vidal, Disciplinary and arbitration procedures of the sport movement , 2017.
10. Council of Europe, Guide on Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights , ECHR, Strasbourg, 2024.
11. Council of Europe, Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights( civil rights), ECHR, Strasbourg, 2014.
12. Council of Europe, Promotion of Good Governance Sport, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2018.
13. Council of Europe, T-DO/Rec (2017) 01 Recommendation on ensuring the independence of hearing panels (bodies) and promoting fair trial in anti-doping cases, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2017.
14. Council of Europe, “The evolution of human rights”, Council of Europe Portal (Çevrimiçi) The evolution of human rights - Manual for Human Rights Education with Young people (Erişim Tarihi: 20/09/2024).
15. Council of Europe, Overview 1959-2021 ECHR,Strasbourg, Şubat 2022.
16. Court of Arbitraiton for Sport, Guidelines on Legal Aid before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (in force as from 1 September 2013; amended on 1 January 2019), CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) Guidelines on Legal Aid (2023), (Erişim Tarihi: 20/03/2025).
17. Court of Arbitration for Sport, Sport and Human Righst Overview from A CAS Perspective, (Çevrimiçi) https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Human_Rights_in_sport__CAS_report_updated_31_03_2021_.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 09/08/2024).
18. Court of Arbitration for Sport, Code: Procedural rules A. General Provisions, (Çevrimiçi) https://www.tas-cas.org/en/arbitration/code-procedural-rules.html (Erişim Tarihi:20/09/2024).
19. DUVAL Antoine, “Seraing vs. FIFA: Why the rumours of CAS’s death have been greatly exaggerated”, (Çevrimiçi) Asser International Sports Law Blog | Seraing vs. FIFA: Why the rumours of CAS’s death have been greatly exaggerated (Erişim Tarihi: 12/08/2024).
20. DUVAL Antoine, “Lost in translation? The European Convention on Human Rights at the Court of Arbitration for Sport”, The International Sports Law Journal,2022, 132-152.
21. European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (criminal limb), ECHR, Strasbourg, 2014.
22. European Parliament, “Good governance in sport”, (Çevrimiçi) Good governance in sport | Think Tank | European Parliament (europa.eu) (Erişim Tarihi:12/08/2024).
23. FLORCZAK-VATOR Monika, “The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Promoting Horizontal Positive Obligations of the State”, 39-53.
24. GEMALMAZ Burak, “TFF Tahkim Kurulunun Bağımsızlığı ve Tarafsızlığı Meselesi: Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Ali Rıza ve Diğerleri v. Türkiye Kararı”, (Çevrimiçi) TFF Tahkim Kurulunun Bağımsızlığı ve Tarafsızlığı Meselesi: Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Ali Rıza ve Diğerleri v. Türkiye Kararı (lexpera.com.tr) (Erişim Tarihi:12/07/2024).
25. GREVEMBERG David / RUTHERFORD David, “Championing Human Rights in the Governance of Sports Bodies”, (Çevrimiçi) https://www.ihrb.org/uploads/reports/Championing_Human_Rights_in_the_Governance_of_Sports_Bodies%2C_MSE_Platform.pdf (Erişim Tarihi:12/09/2024).
26. GÜNDOĞDU Fatih, “TFF Tahkim Kurulunun Adil Yargılanma Hakkı Bakımından Değerlendirilmesi”, Türkiye Barolar Bilriği Dergisi, 2019, sayı 140, 141-170.
27. HAJJAR Majdie, “Is FIFA’s forced arbitration clause invalid?”, (Çevrimiçi) Is FIFA’s forced arbitration clause invalid? | Inside Sports Law | Global law firm | Norton Rose Fulbright (Erişim Tarihi: 20/09/2024).
28. LANE Lotie, “The Horizontal Effect of International Human Rights Law in Practice”, European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance”, 22 Mar 2018, (5/1), 5-88.
29. ÖZDEMİR KOCASAKAL Hatice, “Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Pecshtein Kararı Çerçevesinde CAS’ın Tarafsızlığı ve Bağımsızlığı”, Public and Private International Law Bulletin, Prof. Dr. Cemal Şanlı’ya Armağan, 2020, 40(1), 79–123.
30. PALERMO (ARCHIPEL) Gulio/SOKOLOVSKAYA Anna, “Independence of CAS vis-à-vis its Funders and Repeat Users of its Services”, (Çevrimiçi) Independence of CAS vis-à-vis its Funders and Repeat Users of its Services - Kluwer Arbitration (Erişim Tarihi: 18/08/2024).
31. SARIKAYA GÜLER Tuğba, “Positive Obligations’ Doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights: Is it Cogent or Obscure?” European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies September-December 2017 Volume 2, Issue 6, 359-365.
32. SHINOHARA Tsubasa, “Which states parties should be held responsible for the implementation of positive obligations under the ECHR in sports-related disputes?”, (Çevrimiçi) The International Sports Law Journal ,2022, 332–342.
33. Strasbourg Observers, “EKŞİOĞLU AND MOSTUROĞLU V TURKEY OR “THE FENERBAHÇE CASE”: PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS OF SPORTS GOVERNING BODIES”, STRASBOURG OBSERVERS, https://strasbourgobservers.com/2021/09/17/eksioglu-and-mosturoglu-v-turkey-or-the-fenerbahce-case-presumption-of-innocence-and-the-disciplinary-proceedings-of-sports-governing-bodies/ (Erişim Tarihi: 22/07/2024).
34. Turkish Ministry of Justice, ACTION REPORT Ali Rıza and Others v. Türkiye (30226/10) Judgment of 28 January 2020, final on 22 June 2020 Ekşioğlu and Mosturoğlu v. Türkiye (2006/13, 10857/13) Judgment of 15 June 2021, final on 15 June 2021 İbrahim Tokmak v. Türkiye (54540/16) Judgment of 18 May 2021, final on 6 September 2021 Naki and Amed Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü Derneği v. Türkiye (48924/16) Judgment of 18 May 2021, final on 6 September 2021 Sedat Doğan v. Türkiye (48909/14) Judgment of 18 May 2021, (Çevrimiçi) https://rm.coe.int/0900001680a7fc65 (Erişim Tarihi: 30/08/2024).
35. VOSER Nathalie /GOTTLIEB Benjamin, “How the European Court for Human Rights Interferes in (Sports) Arbitration”, (Çevrimiçi) Kluwer Arbitration Blog How the European Court for Human Rights Interferes in (Sports) Arbitration - Kluwer Arbitration Blog (Erişim Tarihi:20/08/2024).
36. VOSER Nathalie /GOTTLIEB Benjamin, Schlenberg Wittmer Ltd., “CAS procedures compatible with right to a fair trial except for refusal of public hearing (European Court of Human Rights)”, CAS procedures compatible with right to a fair trial except..., Practical Law UK..., 2018, 1-6, (Çevrimiçi) https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2ff0457a-cfb2-4db9-bf7e-fd3ec2991ca7 (Erişim Tarihi: 20/08/2024).
37. World Anti Doping Agency, World Anti-doping Code 2021 (madde 8.1.), 2021, Montreal.
38. United Nations, “UNODC and IOC: Strengthening integrity and good governance in sport”, Office on Drugs and Crime, 2017 (Çevrimiçi) UNODC and IOC: Strengthening integrity and good governance in sport. (Erişim Tarihi: 08/08/2024).
39. United Nations, “Centre puts human rights and sports on same team”, United Nations Office Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, 2018 (Çevrimiçi)
40. Centre puts human rights and sports on same team | OHCHR (Erişim Tarihi:01/09/2024).
41. United Nations, “Sport and the Olympic ideal”, United Nations Human Rights Council 2022, (Çevrimiçi) https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/advisory-committee/human-rights-through-sport (Erişim Tarihi:31/08/2024).
42. BELGELER/YARGI KARARLARI
43. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, İkinci Bölüm Ali Rıza ve Diğerleri / Türkiye Davası, Başvuru no. 30226/10 ve diğer 4 başvuru https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2230226/10%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-204729%22]} (Erişim Tarihi:28.08.2024).
44. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Schatchactwili Kararı (Başvuru no. 9154/10). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%229154/10%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-159566%22]} (Erişim Tarihi: 28/08/2024).
45. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Regner Kararı (Başvuru no. 35289/11 ). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2235289/11%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-177299%22]} (Erişim Tarihi: 28/08/2024).
46. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Mutu ve Pechstein Kararı (Başvuru no. 40575/10 and 67474/10). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2240575/10%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-186828%22]} (Erişim Tarihi:28/08/2024).
47. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Rolf Gustafson v. İsviçre Kararı. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22Rolf%20Gustafson%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-58051%22]} (Erişim Tarihi: 28.08.2024).
48. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Lithgow and Others v. Birleşik Krallık Kararı. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22Lithgow%20and%20Others%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-57526%22]} (Erişim Tarihi: 28.08.2024).
49. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Naki ve Amed Sportif Faaliyetler Kulubü Derneği Kararı. NAKI AND AMED SPORTIF FAALIYETLER KULÜBÜ DERNEĞI v. TURKEY - [Turkish Translation] by the Turkish Ministry of Justice (coe.int) (Erişim Tarihi: 28.09.2024).
50. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Ekşioğlu ve Mosturoğlu Kararı. EKŞIOĞLU AND MOSTUROĞLU v. TURKEY - [Turkish Translation] by the Turkish Ministry of Justice (coe.int) (Erişim Tarihi: 28.09.2024).
51. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, İbrahim Tokmak Kararı. İBRAHIM TOKMAK v. TURKEY - [Turkish Translation] by the Turkish Ministry of Justice (coe.int) (Erişim Tarihi: 28.09.2024).
52. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Engel and Others v. Hollanda Kararı. ENGEL AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS (coe.int) (Erişim Tarihi:28.09.2024).
53. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Lutz v. Almanya Kararı. LUTZ v. GERMANY (coe.int) (Erişim Tarihi:28.08.2024).
54. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Öztürk v. Almanya Kararı. ÖZTÜRK v. GERMANY (coe.int) (Erişim Tarihi:28.08.2024).
55. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Airey v. Irlanda Kararı, AIREY v. IRELAND (coe.int) (Erişim Tarihi: 28.09.2024).
56. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Stanev v. Bulgaristan Kararı. STANEV v. BULGARIA (coe.int) (Erişim Tarihi: 28.09.2024).
57. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası (icisleri.gov.tr) (Erişim Tarihi: 30.09.2024).
58. “TÜRKİYE FUTBOL FEDERASYONU KURULUŞ VE GÖREVLERİ HAKKINDA KANUN“, ( Kanun Numarası : 5894 Kabul Tarihi : 5/5/2009 Yayımlandığı Resmî Gazete : Tarih : 16/5/2009 Sayı : 27230 Yayımlandığı Düstur : Tertip : 5 Cilt : 48 ), 1.5.5894.pdf (mevzuat.gov.tr) (Erişim Tarihi: 29.09.2024).