In recent years, Italian stadium goers have been affected, with increasing frequency and sometimes even for facts of minimal importance (think, for example, of occupying a seat other than that indicated on the ticket) by measures of various kinds, including which are not easy to navigate. It may therefore be appropriate to do some ‘clarification.
Let’s start with the sanctions inflicted for violations (real or presumed) of the stadium regulations.
In the last decade, some Police Headquarters (in particular, that of Turin, but also those of Rome, Naples and others) have challenged the spectators, on various occasions, for the violation of the regulations for the use of the sports facility.
In fact, there is a legal provision (Article 1-seven times of the law decree n. 28/2003: article that was introduced in 2005 with one of the many law decrees issued in this matter) which allows the Prefect to punish the violation of the regulations for the use of sports facilities with a pecuniary administrative sanction (more simply, even if in a somewhat imprecise way: a “fine”) of between 100 and 500 euros.
Sector legislation provides that the regulations for the use of the facilities are approved by the GOS (Safety Operations Group) or by the Police Chief, and then adopted by the sports clubs that use the facility.
The regulations for use, which are usually published on the websites of football clubs and posted on billboards placed at the entrance to the facilities, contain the most disparate prohibitions: from the prohibition of occupying a seat other than that indicated on the ticket or season ticket up to the ban on smoking.
The regulation of use therefore represents a useful lockpick to sanction the fans, hitting them first of all in the walleteven in the absence of behaviors that could allow the adoption of the DASPO (which is instead issued by the Police Headquarters in the cases envisaged by article 6 of law no. 401 of 1989, i.e., broadly speaking, towards those who, in occasion or because of sporting events, has actively participated in episodes of violence, threats or intimidation, or has incited, praised or led to violence): the amount of a single fine for violating the regulations of use can in fact even exceed the cost of a season pass on the curve.
The penalty for violating the regulation of use can also be added to the DASPO. Consider, for example, the case of the fans of the Curva Primavera of Turin, who in December 2019 – for conduct such as the occupation of seats other than those indicated on the admission tickets (single ticket or season ticket), the display of banners authorized, the intonation of chants against President Cairo and the forces of order, etc. – in addition to the DASPO, they received a total of 500 complaints of violation of the regulations for use of the Grande Torino stadium, for a total of 83,500 euros in “fines”. More than 400 of these disputes have been “challenged” before the Prefect: how we will see it shortly.
In summary, the dispute procedure is as follows.
The Police Headquarters (usually through the DIGOS or the Administrative Police Division) notifies the fan, even several days after the match (or even a few weeks later), a report of ascertainment and contestation of the violation of the stadium use regulations: in the report indicate the disputed conduct and the provision of the regulation of use which, according to the Police Headquarters, would have been violated.
At that point the fan has two possibilities: either pay a reduced fine (which is equal to a third of the maximum, and therefore 167 euros) within 60 days of notification of the report, or, within the shorter term of 30 days of notification of the report, submit written defenses (i.e. a sort of “appeal “) to the Prefect, requesting the closure of the administrative procedure (in simple terms, it is requested that the sanction not be imposed). In the defensive writings the fan can also ask to be heard in the Prefecture.
Many may be the arguments contained in the defense writings: for example, it can be argued that the contestation took place after the sporting event, or that the regulation of use was not approved, or, again, that the contested behavior was not implemented, and so on .
As well as in matters of traffic violations, if you pay the reduced fine, you can no longer present an “appeal” to the Prefect; and, in the same way, if the reduced fine is paid after having presented an “appeal” to the Prefect, the appeal becomes inadmissible.
Let’s assume that the reduced fine is not paid and that an “appeal” is presented to the Prefect: after a long time (sometimes even after years), the Prefecture decides whether to file the proceeding (in this case, the fan does not have to pay anything) or issue an ordinance enjoining (ie ordering) the fan to pay a sum that the Prefecture establishes within the “fork” included, as mentioned, between 100 and 500 euros.
A question that lawyers are frequently asked is the following: How soon can the Prefect issue the payment order? According to the Cassation, it can do so within 5 years from the day of the violation (that is, in our case, of the match). However, a recent decision by the Council of State has established that, if a significant period of time elapses, the Prefect must justify the reasons for the delay in the order-injunction with which he inflicts the sanction.
Any sanction by the Prefect can be appealedwithin 30 days of the notification, before the civil Justice of the Peace: in this case it is necessary to pay the State a “fee” for filing the appeal (the so-called Unified Contribution) equal to 43 euros, in addition to the fee of one’s lawyer.
At the end of the trial, the Justice of the Peace will be able to confirm or cancel the order for payment.
The failure to listen to the supporter who requested the hearing in the Prefecture is not considered, in itself, a sufficient reason to cancel the injunction, but, for example, the Justice of the Peace can cancel the injunction because there is no proof of responsibility of the fan (in fact, in court it is up to the Prefecture to demonstrate that the fan has violated the regulations of use).
When the Justice of the Peace cancels the injunction of the Prefectthe Prefecture can also be ordered to pay the legal costs of the fan who has acted before the Justice of the Peace, to the extent decided by the Justice of the Peace himself (which does not necessarily coincide with the fee agreed between the client and the lawyer).
The trial before the Justice of the Peace is usually quite short and can even last only a few months: but this depends a lot on the efficiency of the individual offices of the Justices of the Peace located throughout Italy.
The decision of the Justice of the Peace can in turn be challenged before the Court, and that of the Court can be appealed to the Court of Cassation: however it is very rare that the decisions of the Justice of the Peace in favor of the fans are challenged by the Prefecture.
Finally, a very important note. The fan must pay particular attention to the risk of incurring a DASPO after having received two penalties from the Prefect: in fact, theart. Lay 1-septies del decreto n. 28/2003 it also provides that, after the issue by the Prefect (obviously against the same person) of two injunctions for two violations – committed in the same sports season – of behavioral rules contained in the regulations for the use of sports facilities, the Quaestor can issue the DASPO.
It should be remembered, however, that DASPO cannot be adopted on the basis of dispute reports alone issued by the Police Headquarters; the DASPO can be issued only after the Prefect – once the fan’s “appeals” have been rejected – has inflicted at least two sanctions on the latter: in this sense, the Lombardy – Milan TAR expressed its opinion and, in numerous decisions, the Piedmont Regional Administrative Court, which annulled the DASPO provisions issued on the sole basis of the Questura’s objections of violation of the regulation of use.
In the event of a double prefectural sanction, to avoid a possible DASPO the supporter may in any case appeal to the Justice of the Peace requesting, in addition to the annulment of the sanctions, also the immediate suspension of their effectiveness.
In the event, however, of double payment by the fan of the reduced fine, it is doubtful whether or not there are the conditions for the DASPO.
It is therefore evident that the decision – which must be taken quickly after the notification of the Police Headquarters report – between paying the reduced fine and presenting an “appeal” to the Prefect requires a careful assessment of all the consequences that may derive from this choice.
Paolo Alberto Reineri
(lawyer of the Court of Turin)