The Administrative Court of Tuscany has annulled two reels lasting 10 and 8 years for two Grosseto fans, specifying that the link between violent conduct and sporting event is still a fundamental and essential aspect to consider the reel legitimate…
The complex judicial affair, which lasted over 9 months, first saw the Gip at the Court of Grosseto not validate the obligation to sign, then the Quaestor reissue the daspo changing and specifying the motivation, then another Gip at the Tuscan Court did not validate further the obligation to sign (always accepting the defense deductions of the lawyer Lorenzo Contucci) and finally, after two hearings, the Tar of Florence completely cancel the two daspo accepting the appeal of the lawyer John Adami.
The case concerned a dispute over the possession of some bags containing sports shirts within a football facility of the US Grosseto 1912 Sports Center.
The absence of connection between the action and violent cheering and the lack of a contextual sporting event prompted the magistrate to believe that “nany relationship and/or occasional connection with a sporting event is not sufficient, but an immediate univocal aetiological link with the same is necessary. It cannot therefore detect a relationship of mere occasionality between conduct and sporting event, but a qualified relationship in which the sporting event acts as the triggering cause of the violent conduct, even if this is carried out distantly and not in the same context as happens in disputes of fans on the performance of the team ex post compared to the match (and this is the meaning of the term “on occasion” which accompanies the term “because” of the regulatory text)”.
And lastly the Tar with sentence 549/2023 definitively clarified that: “It cannot be said that the physical and verbal violence attributed to the appellant was committed “on the occasion of sporting events”, it being probable that the appellant was not even aware that a sporting event was taking place; nor is the circumstance that the administration, in the first act adopted, not even mentioned the training of the very young, which emerged only later. It is certain, on the basis of the narrative of the facts resulting from the contested provision, that the appellant certainly did not come to the sports center to attend the training sessions of the Giovanissimi of the team, nor does it appear that he actually attended these training sessions; the disputed episodes of violence cannot be said to have occurred with some type of connection with the aforesaid training sessions, which took place in another part of the sports center and are therefore unrelated to the acts of violence itself.
Nor can it be said that the disputed acts of violence were brought about “because of the sporting events”. In fact, it does not appear that the same facts are in any way related to being the subjects belonging to different fan groups, or in any case caused by sporting events, however distortedly interpreted”.
I like:
Like Loading…