Punishments against riot fans: two lawyers, two opinions on the Canepa lawsuit against the city of Zurich

class=”sc-cffd1e67-0 iQNQmc”>

Politics, authorities, fans and clubs should join forces. But disagreement over the nature and meaning of measures against fan violence has accompanied the discussion since the beginning.

And now a club is even taking the authorities to court: the FCZ in the person of president Ancillo Canepa, together with a number of fans, has appealed against the order of the city of Zurich to block the “Südkurve” pitch in Letzigrund in front of the house. match on January 31 Lausanne-Sport.

The legal clarification is intended to set a precedent for the whole of Switzerland. To clarify the question for the future whether closing spectator sectors after violent incidents outside the stadium is legally legitimate. Blick asked two lawyers for an appraisal.

‘Lockdown affects a much larger group of people’

Daniel Moeckli, professor of public law at the University of Zurich, describes the FCZ’s chances of success in court as “fully intact”. Because of two reasons. Firstly, according to Moeckli, there is no legal basis for the sector closure: “The Hooligan Concordat, on which the Security Department bases the sector closure, only authorizes the authorities to take measures to prevent future acts of violence. However, it does not provide a basis for punishing violent behavior. However, ordering a sector closure in response to riots appears to be aimed at punishment, and not at preventing violence.

Secondly, Moeckli thinks the closure of the curve is disproportionate: “It is not clear to me to what extent the closure of a stadium sector is intended to prevent violent behavior outside or inside the stadium. Even if a sector remains closed, violent people can gather inside or outside the stadium. The principle of proportionality states that the official measure must be directed against the violent people. However, the closure of an entire stadium sector affects a much larger group of people.”

Crucial question: is violence punished or prevented by sector closure?

Lucien Müller, lecturer at the Institute for Regulation and Competition at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences, told Blick: “I cannot rule out from the outset that the call will be successful, but I am quite critical.”

First of all, according to Müller, it should be noted that violent behavior before and after a football match also falls within the scope of the Hooligan Concordat. As long as there is sufficient temporal and thematic proximity to the event. This means that violent behavior by football fans outside stadiums can also lead to preventive measures to prevent future acts of violence.

The crucial question is: is a sector closure an appropriate, necessary and reasonable means for those affected to prevent future acts of violence? In contrast to Moeckli, Müller believes: “In my opinion, sector closures in general cannot be seen as an impermissible and disproportionate means of preventing future violence. However, it should also be noted that under the Hooligan Concordat, measures that disadvantage fans without any preventive effect are not permitted (such as measures that serve solely to punish previous acts of violence).

According to Müller, the boundaries between punishment and prevention are not always clear. It is therefore difficult to definitively estimate the chances of success of the profession.

Source : Blick