Rights explained Article 6
Article 6 ECHR: The Right to a Fair Trial and Its Place in Sport Arbitration
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to a fair trial, guarantees a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of civil rights and criminal charges. It is also the Convention article that has most often reached sport, because disciplinary and arbitration bodies decide careers, contracts and sanctions. The Court has applied it to football federations and to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
What does Article 6 guarantee?
Paragraph 1 states that in the determination of civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge, "everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
Paragraph 2 adds the presumption of innocence for anyone charged with a criminal offence. Paragraph 3 lists minimum rights: prompt information on the accusation, adequate time and facilities for the defence, legal assistance of one's own choosing or free when the interests of justice require, examination of witnesses, and an interpreter if needed.
Can a hearing be held in private?
Article 6 has no general limitation clause, but paragraph 1 allows the press and public to be excluded from all or part of a trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society. Exclusion is also possible where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties require it, or to the extent strictly necessary where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
The right of access to a court is not written in the text. The Court derived it from Article 6 in Golder v. the United Kingdom (1975), and its guide describes access as an inherent aspect of the safeguards the article enshrines.
What did Mutu and Pechstein and Ali Riza decide?
In Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland (2 October 2018), a professional footballer and a speed skater argued that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was not independent and impartial. The Court held that the CAS proceedings had to offer all the safeguards of a fair hearing and rejected the complaints about structural independence. It found a violation of Article 6 § 1 for the skater, because the CAS had not held a public hearing on the merits of her doping sanction.
In Ali Riza and Others v. Turkey (28 January 2020), the Court found a violation for a professional player and a referee because the Arbitration Committee of the Turkish Football Federation lacked independence and impartiality, with the federation's board largely made up of club members or executives. The Court said the case revealed a systemic problem and indicated that the State should secure the committee's structural independence.
How did the Semenya judgment extend the principle?
The Registry's guide, updated in February 2026, records that in Semenya v. Switzerland (Grand Chamber, 10 July 2025) the Court addressed sport arbitration imposed by a governing body. It said such arbitration should afford the safeguards of Article 6 § 1, because sport governing bodies can impose the mandatory and exclusive jurisdiction of the CAS. It added that the Federal Supreme Court's review, limited to public policy, did not meet the requirement of particular rigour for a case involving fundamental rights.
