The rules on the distribution of party income will be determined from the beginning.

A major change decision was made in the legislation regarding the distribution of match revenue of all sports clubs, especially Fenerbahçe, Galatasaray and Beşiktaş, amounting to hundreds of millions of lira.

The process related to the regulation, which is closely related to the income of the clubs, began with the lawsuit filed by the Istanbul Provincial Directorate of Sports.

An Istanbul sports club did not pay its share of the money won from matches to the Provincial Directorate of Sports. The provincial sports office filed a lawsuit to collect its accounts receivable.

COURT OF APPEALS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

The 5th Civil Court of First Instance of Küçükçekmece, where the case was filed, concluded that the rule of the law on party revenue sharing was unconstitutional and requested the Constitutional Court to annul the relevant article of law.

According to the article entitled “Products of the competition” of the Law of Services for Youth and Sports No. 3289, which the Court took to the high court, the remaining amount after deducting expenses from the income of sports clubs for the matches is distributed between the provincial sports directorates and the clubs that play the match.

However, the application and procedural principles regarding the amount to be delivered to the clubs and the participation of the provincial sports office are determined by the regulations.

The 5th Civil Court of First Instance of Küçükçekmece raised the following arguments in its complaint before the Constitutional Court:

“The credit requested from the sports club by the Provincial Sports Directorate is an economic obligation in terms of its nature.

The procedures and principles on how to implement the financial obligation must be determined by law.

In addition, the financial obligation in question also imposes a limitation on the right of ownership. The restriction can only be made by law.

The legal regulation, for its part, must include the essential elements of public credits in accordance with the principle of certainty in taxation.

However, with the objectionable rule, all of these issues were left squarely in the hands of regulation.

This rule is contrary to articles 2, 5, 13, 35 and 73 of the Constitution”.

AYM: IT MUST BE REGULATED BY LAW, NOT BY REGULATION

The Constitutional Court made the following observations and assessments in its examination:

Legal arrangements that limit fundamental rights and freedoms must be established by law, and must be proportionate and consistent with the reason for the limitation stipulated in the Constitution.

In this sense, the formal existence of a legal norm that limits the right to property is not enough;

There is no certainty in the aforementioned Law about in which contests the participation in the income will be taken by the administration, what the concepts of gross income and necessary expenses include, for what purpose and for what the participation in the net income will be distributed. to the administration is taken. In this sense, it is possible to regulate first-hand through regulations the aforementioned issues.

In addition, the amount of payment to the administration on the income from sports competitions obtained by the clubs has not been regulated in the Law.

Again, in this context, there is no provision in the Law that shows the upper or lower limits of the share that will be taken from the revenue of the competition.

Therefore, the regulations will regulate first-hand the ratios on the participation to be deducted from the income of the contest.

In this context, the legal framework on how the calculation of the participation that will be taken from the income of the competition will be determined has not been elaborated, the lower and upper limits of the participation relationship of the administration have not been determined.

The norm is also incompatible with the principle of inalienability of the legislative power.

PROVISION: CANCELED AND EFFECTIVE AFTER 9 MONTHS

The Constitutional Court finally handed down the following sentence:

It was unanimously decided that the second sentence of article 16 of the Law on Services for Youth and Sports is unconstitutional, and that the termination clause will take effect 9 months later.