Originally Posted by
osarusan
Yeah, I imagined that the individuals in question would only be liable if there was a criminal act of some kind. Still, it would be nice to think that there is some fine print regarding ticket purchase or steward warning that gives Dundalk the right to chase them for the money.
It's an interesting one and I know EG mentioned it too. Are there any precedents or examples in other fields where attendees also have obligations or duties of care by virtue of their attendance at a paid ticket event?
It's not directly relevant, but I did find it interesting; a few days ago, I was seeking clarification on the jurisdiction or competence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport and was reading a case involving UEFA and Fenerbahçe where UEFA had punished the appellant with a fine and competition ban on the basis of their alleged supporters having disrupted a game with parachute fireworks: http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/docu...13920FINAL.pdf
Originally Posted by
CAS
On 21 February 2013, during an UEFA Europa League match played behind closed doors between the Club and FC Bate Borisov, several fireworks were launched, allegedly by supporters of the Club, from outside the stadium. Several of these items landed inside the stadium, one of them causing a small fire, another landed near the Club’s substitutes’ bench and a third one landed on the field of play, causing the game to be interrupted for about one minute.
I skimmed through it fairly quickly, but what I thought was unusual was that the fireworks had actually come from outside the stadium and had been fired in over the stands, yet UEFA insisted that those who fired the fireworks were to be deemed supporters for whose actions the club were to be held responsible. This was argued because, despite said individuals being opposed to the club's current president, the club had previously admitted that the individuals concerned were known regular attendees of Fenerbahçe matches. It was also alleged that they had been "near the stadium" during the match being played behind closed doors, which implied a direct connection. Fenerbahçe argued that UEFA could not prove the individuals concerned were supporters and further insisted that they could not be held responsible for the "perpetrators [who] did not conduct their actions in the match venue or around the stadium or in its vicinity". UEFA deemed it necessary to point out that "the term 'at a match' used in the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations implies any incident that takes place during a match, irrespective of where the misconduct originated, provided that the incident occurs in the course of the match or is linked to the match in question, the criteria in this respect applying to before, during and after the match".
The club's argument on this matter was further summarised as follows:
"More specifically, the Club finds that the violations did not took place 'at the match' as provided for in Article 6(1) UEFA DR or 'around the stadium' as provided for in Article 6(2) UEFA DR. Pursuant to the general legal principle of nulla poena sine lege no disciplinary measures may be imposed on the Club for the unforeseeable actions of the perpetrators as the Club bears no default, also because the dense settlement structure around the match venue takes it impossible to control the area and to prevent actions of this kind."
Regardless, CAS rejected their appeal and, in deeming UEFA's punishment proportionate, let the competition ban and fine stand.
The following paragraphs (indeed, containing some elements possibly relevant to the thread at hand) explain the conclusion of CAS:
"81. For the avoidance of doubt, the Panel reiterates that it is of no avail to the Club that the actions of the perpetrators might have been unforeseeable, that the area around the stadium might have been hard to control due to its location and that the parachute flares were allegedly launched from a distance of 800m from the stadium. As set out supra, the fact that the Club made efforts to prevent any disturbances, such as providing for the presence of 796 security personnel (600 mobile striking force personnel and 196 permanent staff) inside and around the stadium and the security measures taken at the entrance doors of the stadium and its surroundings, are of no avail to the Club as these are only circumstances that can possibly be taken into account in respect of the proportionality of the sanction, but are not circumstances that can serve as a ground for excuse or exculpation of the Club, as the strict liability rule
as provided for by Article 6(1) of the UEFA DR applies.
82. Consequently, the Panel finds that the perpetrators are supporters of the Club and that the Club is directly responsible for the misbehaviour of its supporters based on Article 6(1) of the UEFA DR. The Club however challenges the application of the strict liability principle enshrined in Article 6 of the UEFA DR. Therefore, the Panel will subsequently assess the validity of this principle before determining whether the Club is liable for the behaviour of its supporters and should be sanctioned accordingly."
This also might be illuminating with regard to a club's responsibility:
"UEFA member associations and football clubs are responsible, even if they are not at fault, for the improper conduct of their supporters, including racist acts, which expressly breach the Disciplinary Regulations. Clubs are automatically held responsible once such an act has been established. The object of this rule is very clearly to ensure that clubs that host football matches shoulder the responsibility for their supporters’ conduct, which must comply with UEFA’s objectives. It should be noted that UEFA has no direct disciplinary authority over a club’s supporters, but only over European football associations and clubs. The latter are responsible for conforming to the standards and spirit of the UEFA regulations. If clubs were able to extricate themselves from any responsibility by claiming that they had taken all measures they could reasonably be expected to take to prevent any breach of the UEFA rules, and if supporters still manage to commit such an act, there would be no way of penalising that behaviour, even though it constituted a fault in itself. UEFA’s rules of conduct would therefore be nothing more than vague obligations, since they would be devoid of any sanctions. By penalising a club for the behaviour of its supporters, it is in fact the latter who are targeted and who, as supporters, will be liable to pay the penalty imposed on their club. This is the only way in which UEFA has any chance of achieving its objectives. Without such an indirect sanction, UEFA would be literally powerless to deal with supporters’ misconduct if a club refused to take responsibility for such behaviour."
It appears CAS would be prepared to acknowledge a club having taken measures to prevent the occurrence of a detrimental incident as a mitigating circumstance, so perhaps UEFA's disciplinary body would too upon an appeal to them:
"126. The Panel finds that the only mitigating circumstances that can be taken into account are that the Club took certain security measures and arranged the presence of approximately 800 security staff inside and outside the stadium and that the Club immediately took action against the perpetrators in co-operation with the relevant authorities and penalized them with a stadium ban. The other alleged mitigating circumstances are in fact aggravating, not relevant or contrary to the facts as established by the Panel."
In this case though, CAS found that the other aggravating circumstances had the broad effect of negating the aforementioned extenuating ones.
Bookmarks