500 paikkaa tyhjäksi (... tai vähän enemmän, yksi pääty?). Yleensä näissä taitaa olla joku parin kolmen vuoden koeaika, mutta nyt näin ei ole.
UEFA competitions cases: July-December 2015 - UEFA.orgDecision of 8 July 2015
VPS Vaasa
(racist behavior and crowd disturbances)
Circumstances of the case:
After warm-up, around 18.48 away team players left the pitch and when they came close to the
stand home fans located above the entrance, started to abuse them. Their target were
especially away team coloured players. They chanted “Swedish gypsies” booing and also try to
spat on the players.
Same kind of incidents happened again after the match, when away players left the pitch.
Home fans again booing coloured away team players and again chanted Swedish gypsies.
Legal framework: Article 14 and 16 (2) DR
Decision
To order the partial closure of the VPS Vaasa Stadium during the next (1) UEFA competition
match in which VPS Vaasa would play as the host club. VPS Vaasa shall inform at least 4 days
prior to the match, the sector(s) to be closed, which shall at least comprehend 500 seats.
To fine VPS Vaasa € 5´000 for the crowd disturbances.
Chairman: Thomas Partl (Austria)
Vice-Chairmen: Jim Hansen (Denmark)
Sandor Berzi (Hungary)
I. Facts Of The Case
1. The elements set out below are a summary of the main relevant facts, as established by
the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body on the basis of the official reports, the written
submissions, the exhibits filed and the statements produced in the course of the Control,
Ethics and Disciplinary Body proceedings. While this UEFA disciplinary body has
considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the club
in these proceedings, it refers in the present decision only to the submissions and
evidence it considers necessary to explain its reasoning.
2. Briefly, the most relevant facts of this case can be summarized as follows:
- After warm-up, around 18.48 away team players left the pitch and when they came
close to the stand home fans located above the entrance, started to abuse them.
Case Law. CEDB & Appeals Body. 2015/2016 (July– December)
CONTENT
9 | P a g e
Their target were especially away team coloured players. They chanted “Swedish
gypsies” booing and also try to spat on the players.
- Same kind of incidents happened again after the match, when away players left the
pitch. Home fans again booing coloured away team players and again chanted
Swedish gypsies.
II. The Respondent´s position
3. The Club in its statements dated on 7 July 2015 argues that the chant is the one used
from other Fan clubs in Sweden, which are AIK rivals. The chant goes on like “Solna
Tattare” which is a common nickname for all AIK fans.
4. Further the Club states that the supporters did not know what the chant possibly meant
and by no means this chant was used against coloured people alone, but against AIK
supporters and all AIK players in common.
5. Fans have no reason whatsoever to have coloured players as a target, being the Club
very international club and the city of Vaasa living over 100 different nationalities.
6. Regarding the crowd disturbances, the Club stresses that the referred attitude of
supporters is quite usual after a game.
7. The more detailed arguments made by the club in support of its written submissions are
set out below in as far as they are relevant.
III. Merits of the Case
A. UEFA´s competence.
8. Pursuant to Article 52 of the UEFA Statutes, as well as Article 23 of the UEFA Disciplinary
Regulations (DR), the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body is competent to deal with the
case.
9. In light of the above, the UEFA Statutes, rules and regulations, in particular the UEFA
Disciplinary Regulations are applicable to these proceedings.
B. The crowd disturbances
a) Applicable legal framework and general remarks
According to Article 16 (2) DR:
However, all associations and clubs are liable for the following inappropriate behaviour
on the part of their supporters and may be subject to disciplinary measures and directives
Case Law. CEDB & Appeals Body. 2015/2016 (July– December)
CONTENT
10 | P a g e
even if they can prove the absence of any negligence in relation to the organisation of
the match:
a) the invasion or attempted invasion of the field of play;
b) the throwing of objects;
c) the lighting of fireworks or any other objects;
d) the use of laser pointers or similar electronic devices;
e) the use of gestures, words, objects or any other means to transmit any message
that is not fit for a sports event, particularly messages that are of a political,
ideological, religious, offensive or provocative nature;
f) acts of damage;
g) the disruption of national or competition anthems;
h) any other lack of order or discipline observed inside or around the stadium.
According to Article 8 DR, which stipulates the principle of “strict liability”, and Article 16
(2) DR, which picks up on such, the club is to be held responsible for the improper
conduct of its supporters, even if it might not be at fault itself.
According to Article 38 DR, facts contained in official UEFA reports are presumed to be
accurate. Proof of their inaccuracy may, however, be provided.
b) The responsibility of the club
13. In the case in hand, before and after the match home fans abused and spat on some of
the away team players when they were returning to the dressing room.
The above described incidents involving spitting and abusing of the opponent players
can only be qualified as an act of hooliganism, which is considered as a particular serious
offence. Such behaviours are all the more unacceptable as they tarnish the image of
football and UEFA.
The Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body recalls that according to Article 8 DR, which
stipulates the principle of strict liability, clubs and member associations are to be held
liable for the conduct of their supporters, even if they are themselves not at fault. Art. 16
(2) (h) DR picks up on this principle.
The arguments put forward by the Club are not enough to breach the accuracy of the
UEFA official report which explicitly and comprehensively referred to this incident in both
his UEFA delegate and additional report.
Bearing the above in mind, the Club is to be held responsible for the improper conduct
of its supporters in accordance with Article 16 (2) (h) DR and must be punished
accordingly.
Case Law. CEDB & Appeals Body. 2015/2016 (July– December)
CONTENT
11 | P a g e
C. The racist behaviour
a) Applicable legal framework and general remarks
18. According to Article 8 DR, a member association or club that is bound by a rule of
conduct laid down in UEFA’s Statutes or regulations may be subject to disciplinary
measures and directives if such a rule is violated as a result of the conduct of one of its
members, players, officials or supporters and any other person exercising a function on
behalf of the member association or club concerned, even if the member association or
the club concerned can prove the absence of any fault or negligence.
19. According to Article 14 (1) DR, any person under the scope of Article 3 who insults the
human dignity of a person or group of persons on whatever grounds, including skin
colour, race, religion or ethnic origin, incurs a suspension lasting at least ten matches or
a specified period of time, or any other appropriate sanction.
20. According to Article 38 DR, facts contained in official UEFA reports are presumed to be
accurate. Proof of their inaccuracy may, however, be provided.
b) The responsibility of the club
21. Article 14 DR is a special rule taking over the principle set out in Article 8 DR which
stipulates that member associations and clubs are responsible for racist conducts of their
supporters. This responsibility is given for offences committed by any person supporting
the team before, during or after the match, irrespective of the fault of the club or
association in question (strict liability).
22. The fight against racism is a high priority for UEFA. UEFA has a policy of zero tolerance
towards racism and discrimination on the pitch and in the stands. All racist misbehaviours
shall be considered as serious offences against the disciplinary regulations and shall be
punished regarding the circumstances and the previous records with the utmost severe
sanctions.
23. In the case in hand, before and after the game the Club´s supporters chanted Swedish
gypsies booing. As per the delegate´s report their target were especially away team
coloured players.
24. It shall be recalled that according to Article 38 DR, facts contained in official UEFA reports
are presumed to be accurate. Proof of their inaccuracy may, however, be provided.
25. The Club stresses, first, that its supporters chanted a chant given to the AIK by their
Swedish opponents in Sweden, secondly, that it has no racist or discriminatory content,
thirdly, its supporters did not knew what they were chanting, and, finally, it stresses that
both the Club and city are very international, being no reason for the supporters to act
in a racist manner.
Case Law. CEDB & Appeals Body. 2015/2016 (July– December)
CONTENT
12 | P a g e
26. The Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body cannot comply with the assertions of the Club.
The fact that the chant is given by other fan groups to AIK or that the VPS Vaasa did not
understand the content of the chant is irrelevant since the content of the chant is
indistinctly discriminatory as it tries to insult the AIK supporters by calling them “gypsies”
and hereby denigrating an ethnic group whilst using them for insulting purposes, a
shameful and disgustful conduct which stands within the definition provided by Article
14 DR (CAS 2013/A/3324 and 3369)
27. In this regard, this UEFA disciplinary body is convinced that the description provided by
the UEFA delegate reflect a racist conduct emanating from a VPS Vaasa supporter and
falls under the scope of Article 14 (1) DR.
28. Consequently, as the racist behaviour of the VPS Vaasa supporter has been established,
the Club shall be held responsible for its supporter´s racist behaviour and must be
sanctioned accordingly.
IV. The determination of the appropriate disciplinary measure
29. As regards to the racist behaviour, the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body draws the
attention to the fact that after the enforcement of the Disciplinary Regulations Edition
2013, confirmed again in the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations Edition 2014, the fight against
racist behaviour has entered into a new stage. It has resulted in more severe sanctions
towards racist behaviours. As such, if one or more of a member association or club’s
supporters engage in the behaviour described in Article 14 (1), the member association
or club responsible is punished with a minimum of a partial stadium closure (Article 14
(2) DR). Only in exceptional circumstances the related sanctions concerning this
misbehaviour, which are contained in Article 14 (2) and (3) DR, are to be modified.
30. Bearing in mind the above, the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body decides to order
the partial closure of VPS Vaasa Stadium during the next (1) UEFA competition match in
which VPS Vaasa would play as the host club. VPS Vaasa shall inform at least four days
prior to the match, the sector(s) to be closed, which shall at least comprehend 500 seats.
31. Regarding the improper conduct of supporters, based on Article 17 DR the Control, Ethics
and Disciplinary Body determines the type and extent of the disciplinary measures to
impose according to the objective and subjective elements of the case, taking into
account any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In the case of multiple offences,
the punishment shall correspond to the most serious offence and be increased
depending on the specific circumstances.
32. In the present case, the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body identified and took into
account the seriousness the offences.
33. In the light of the above considerations, the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body deems
that a fine 5´000 for the improper conduct of the supporters is the adequate disciplinary
measure.
e. Klubi muistaakseni sai jotkin sakot lohkovaihesoihdutuksista tms.? Mutta eivät nähtävästi kelvanneet listoille. Vaasan rasistit sen sijaan ylittivät jonkun kynnyksen ja pääsivät oikein kirjoihin ja kansiin. Respect! Tuolta lisää keissejä:
http://www.uefa.org/disciplinary/disciplinary-cases/cases/index.html
