Benfica was acquitted of ten offenses related to supporting organized groups of supporters.
The Lisbon Criminal Court upheld the Reds’ appeal and dropped a fine and a game behind closed doors.
Benfica had been sanctioned by the Authority for the Prevention and Combating of Violence in Sport (APCVD) with a fine of 60,000 euros and a match behind closed doors because of the alleged support for organized groups of supporters not registered.
In a 60-page report, the court concluded that “the conduct adopted by the appellant [Benfica] do not constitute prohibited acts of support”.
“Thus, it cannot be concluded that by authorizing the entry of banners and stripes into the sectors of the cheerleaders indicated above, the appellant promotes positive discrimination of them compared to other supporters, allowing them freedom of movement. action and expression which is not at all granted to other supporters and spectators, since this ease of access is imposed by law”.
Here are some passages:
“Thus, it can be concluded that the legislator intended to strengthen the security of sports shows with the creation of special areas for the access and permanence of supporters, and it is only in these areas that the choreographic material described in the facts can enter and it is also mentioned that the GOA in high risk broadcasts will only be able to watch the matches in these areas. Consequently, nothing described in the proven facts is contra legem and nothing described in the proven facts is confused with the support described in art. 0 14 0/2 of law n° 39/2009 of 30/07.
It must also be said that the legal interpretation defended here is based on the unity of the legal order as a whole, as it could not fail to be under the provisions of art. 0 9 0 of the Civil Code and art. 3 of the RGCO, taking into account that the new regime is specifically more favourable.
However, if in fact the aim and the good protected by the law were not called into question – security cannot simply be the circumstance of the absence of a legal constitution of the group of supporters for the wearing of seat belts, indicating an offence, under penalty of being to violate the principle of equality and freedom of expression, provided for by the constitution — art. 13 and 37-1 of the CRP, by authorizing identical demonstrations to citizens who are followers, but not grouped together.
We are therefore assured that the behaviors in the form described in the facts on the basis of the decision cannot be included in the legal provision in which they were included in the condemnation of the present case, because they do not meet the requirements specific to the standard, damage to the interest is not protected there either.
Thus, it is inexorable to conclude that the conduct adopted by the Appellant does not constitute prohibited acts of support, under the terms and for the purposes of Law No. 39/2009, of July 30.
The Court also understands that none of the alleged offenses having been met, neither the objective element nor the subjective element of an administrative offense type, the Appellant must be acquitted. »