Stadium ban
A stadium ban prohibits individuals from attending sports events organized by a club or a sports association.
The organizer of the sporting event makes use of his house rights . The aim of the measure is on the one hand to guarantee security and on the other hand to sanction offenses.
Stadium bans are particularly common in football .
Germany
Stadium bans have been issued in Germany since the early 1990s . In the leagues of the DFB there are both local and nationwide stadium bans. Nationwide bans apply to the top four leagues, the DFB Cup and international matches. They are pronounced by the organizing club or by the DFB itself. The implementation is regulated by the "Guidelines for the Uniform Treatment of Stadium Bans".
A stadium ban can be issued for the following offenses, among others:
- Mayhem
- Burning down pyrotechnics
- right-wing extremist or racist acts
- Land and trespassing
- theft
- vandalism
The underlying offenses, if they were related to a sporting event, need not necessarily have taken place at the sports facility itself. In addition, a ban does not require a final conviction for a criminal offense. A preliminary investigation against a person is sufficient. A ban is often issued on the recommendation of the police.
Depending on the severity of the case, a stadium ban can be issued for a period of one to three seasons, the minimum duration is one week. A local stadium ban is only issued in less serious cases (maximum duration: one year). In 2008, the DFB relaxed the guidelines and reduced the maximum entry ban from five to three years. However, representatives of associations, professional clubs and government agencies decided at a security conference in July 2012, which was held on the occasion of the many negative incidents at the end of the previous season, including the relegation games , to increase the maximum duration for stadium bans to ten years.
As of July 1, 2016, there were 2,351 nationwide stadium bans.
Controversies and judgments
Stadium bans are controversial, especially as a preventive measure. Fan groups, fan club associations and other organizations as well as some fan projects are committed to a general change in the guidelines. Stadium bans should only be imposed after legally binding judgments or at least in the event of a specific and urgent suspicion. In the opinion of the DFB Prevention & Safety Commission, however, preventive action is essential. In a specific case of a Bayern Munich fan , the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe passed a landmark judgment. In this case, according to his own statements, a fan unintentionally got into a riot with fans of MSV Duisburg in downtown Duisburg. The public prosecutor closed a preliminary investigation into the violation of the peace . Nevertheless, the MSV Duisburg imposed a nationwide stadium ban on all persons who were investigated. The BGH found that the measure was covered by the house rules. The presiding judge Wolfgang Krüger emphasized that in the interests of all spectators the clubs had to ensure that the games ran smoothly. Furthermore, the court found that the investigation had been stopped in the specific case - however, the plaintiff had "not accidentally" got into the rioting group, but rather belonged to it. The Federal Constitutional Court sought a decision in 2017 on the constitutional complaint lodged against the judgment (Az. 1 BvR 3080/09) . The rapporteur is Johannes Masing . On April 11, 2018, the constitutional complaint was rejected.
The BGH ruling caused outrage among many fan groups. Fan associations also see a problem in the judgment that will cause permanent displeasure among fan groups among fans. The security officer of the DFB Helmut Spahn argued against it, however, that the issue of stadium bans is dealt with very sensitively. He also made it clear that the guidelines provide for a hearing of the fans concerned by the clubs, but that they do not always make use of it. The lawyer of the 16-year-old at the time of the crime spoke of kin detention at the trial. Due to the stadium ban, the home club canceled the young man's season ticket and membership, strictly in accordance with the club's statutes.
However, the practices in dealing with stadium bans are subject to debate. The journalist Helmut Kerscher questions the rule of law of the procedure in the Süddeutsche Zeitung. The main argument is that under German criminal law there are no legal remedies against the discontinuation of proceedings by the accused. If a stadium ban persists, however, it depends on whether the proceedings were discontinued because of insignificance or lack of suspicion. It therefore depends solely on the assessment of the police and the investigating public prosecutor whether or not a stadium ban is imposed on the person concerned. These concerns are also shared in German jurisprudence , especially in constitutional law.
Other countries
In Austria and Switzerland, stadium bans are regulated in a similar way to Germany; Switzerland has another instrument to combat hooliganism, the rayon ban .
In some other countries there is also the possibility of a life-long stadium ban, for example in England.
Exclusion from all activities in football
According to the FIFA regulations, football players and officials can be “excluded from all football activities” for a limited period of time. This exclusion also includes the pure attendance of football matches, thus also includes a time-limited stadium ban.
In 2014, Franz Beckenbauer (3 months - lifted again after two weeks) and the Uruguayan international Luis Suárez (4 months) were affected by such a stadium ban .
See also
Web links
- Guidelines for the uniform treatment of stadium bans (PDF; 513 kB) of the DFB
Individual evidence
- ↑ »We have to prosecute every crime« Interview on 11Freunde.de, September 7, 2011, accessed on May 1, 2012
- ↑ Harsher sentences for Stadion-Zündler Spiegel Online , July 17, 2012, accessed on July 17, 2012
- ↑ There are 2,351 stadium bans in Germany . In: Fascination Fan Curve . ( faszination-fankurve.de [accessed on December 3, 2017]).
- ↑ Profans.de
- ↑ Judgment of the Federal Court of Justice Suspected stadium bans are permissible , Spiegel Online , accessed on June 25, 2012.
- ↑ Overview for 2017 / First Senate No. 15. Website of the Federal Constitutional Court, accessed on March 27, 2017
- ↑ Principles on the resolution of the First Senate of April 11, 2018 - 1 BvR 3080/09 -
- ↑ No evidence of crime required , FAZ October 30, 2009, accessed on June 25, 2012.
- ↑ Judgment on stadium bans: When in doubt against the football fan , Spiegel Online, October 30, 2009, accessed on June 25, 2012.
- ↑ The stadium ban is unacceptable under constitutional law, a comment by Helmut Kerscher in Süddeutsche.de
- ↑ Jan F. Orth and Björn Schiffbauer, The legal situation with the nationwide stadium ban , Jurisprudence 2011, p. 177 ff.
- ↑ Coin thrower threatens lifelong stadium ban , Focus.de, April 2, 2012, accessed on May 1, 2012.
