Sentence of the Criminal Court of Cassation Section. 3 Num. 17134 year 2024

Penal Sent. Section 3 Num. 17134 Year 2024

President: SURNAME NAME

speaker: SURNAME NAME

Hearing date: 03/28/2024

JUDGMENT

on the appeal brought by SURNAME NAMEborn in Ozieri BIRTH_DATE SURNAME NAME born in COMPANY_REASON il BIRTH_DATE SURNAME NAMEborn in COMPANY_REASON BIRTH_DATE SURNAME NAMEborn in COMPANY_REASON il BIRTH_DATE SURNAME NAMEborn in COMPANY_REASON il BIRTH_DATE SURNAME NAMEborn in COMPANY_REASON il BIRTH_DATE.11.2004

against the order dated 10.11.2023 of the Court of Sassari, having seen the documents, the contested provision and the appeal; having heard the report given by the councillor NAME SURNAME; having read the requests of the Public Prosecutor, in person of NOTARY_ATTORNEY NAME NOTARY_ATTORNEYwhich concluded that the appeal was inadmissible

HELD actually

1.With an order dated 10.11.2023, the Court of Sassari validated, accepting the request of the Public Prosecutor, the decrees issued by the NOTARY_ATTORNEY of the same city on 30.10.2023, ritually notified to the interested parties on 7.11.2023, with which it was imposed to NAME SURNAME, NAME SURNAME, NAME SURNAME, NAME SURNAME, NAME SURNAME e NAME SURNAMEtogether with the ban on access to all sports facilities located in the national and foreign territory where events are held

football sports, including pleasant matches, the obligation for the duration of six years for SURNAMEfor the SURNAME and for the SURNAME as repeat offenders and two years for subordinates to present themselves at the offices of the Commissariat of the place of residence during the matches in which the team of the team is involved COMPANY_REASONaccording to the specifically indicated deadlines.

The subordinates jointly appealed against this decision COMPANY_REASONtion, through the defender, articulating two reasons with which they complain:

1) the absence of an autonomous examination and a critical judgment by the investigating judge, in relation to the motivational flaw, of the elements mentioned in the two CNRs forming part of the file sent to him for validation given the absence of the videos which could not consequently be viewed by the judge, whereas the frames reproduced therein did not portray any of the appellants, nor the compact group of ultras who according to the Daspo were marching in the direction of the stadium with weapons and with a distorted face, thus contesting the defense the validity of a collective responsibility, without the necessary clarification COMPANY_REASON conduct attributable to the individual recipient of the measure;
2) the violation of the right of defense by not making any mention of the defense statement ritually transmitted to the GIP office, which censured the omitted indication COMPANY_REASON conduct possibly attributable to the individual appellants

CONSIDERED IN LAW

1.11 the first reason must be considered manifestly unfounded.

In this regard, it must be highlighted that among the multiple legislative interventions that have taken place in the sector of the prevention of violence connected to sporting events, art. 2 legislative decree 08/22/2014, n. (converted into law 17 October 2014, no. 146), the so-called “group DASPO”, which provides for a duration of no less than three years (art. 6, paragraph 5, Law 401 of 1989) for cases of “conduct, whether individual or group, evidently aimed at active participation in episodes of violence, threats or intimidation such as to endanger public safety or create disturbances to order public” (art.6, paragraph 1, Law 401/89).
If the exclusion responds to a consolidated interpretation,within the scope of application of the rule,also having regard to its syntactic tenor,within the specific case COMPANY_REASON violent “group” conduct,of an ascription of ‘responsibility’ capable of irrespective of individual participation in collective action,in which consequently there can be no room for hypotheses of mere connivance and,a fortiori,of simple physical presence,even casual or occasional,within a group,requiring,on the other hand,for the purposes of assessing danger,the identification of an active role – understood as membership and/or contribution
of the individual to violent,threatening or intimidating actions – of the individual participant each belonging to the group,however,it cannot be considered,as the defense would like,that,in addition to participation in the collective action which presents characteristics of intimidation,violence or threat,there must be the identification of further conduct individually attributable to the recipients of the measure.

as can be seen from reading the contested provision,the conduct accused of the appellants consists in their active participation in the action of a group of ultras of theCOMPANY_REASON COMPANY_REASONwhose intimidating force lay in the march in procession,once they got out of the cars in which they had arrived at the stadium shortly before the football match,cars that had parked in the lot in front of a petrol station,all with their faces partially covered with helmets or hats with visors or balaclavas,and some armed with baseball bats,sticks and bars,towards the inside of the sports field while paper bombs were lit and smoke bombs were thrown untill they were blocked by the police who subsequently identified them. Consequently, they are the intimidating methods of the action carried out jointly by the members of the group of fans, whose presence acted at least as a mutual reinforcement in terms of the moral contribution to the success of the operation intended to hit the fans of the opposing team and the concreteness of the danger connected to the explosion of the smoke bombs and COMPANY_REASON paper bombs to have attacked public safety and security at the garrison COMPANY_REASON what are the measures restrictive of personal freedom provided for by the art. 401/1998.
Having fully justified the investigating judge regarding the fumus of the attribution of the conduct to the individual appellants, all of whom were part of the group of troublemakers whose identification the PG agents proceeded with individually, as can be seen from the referral for reportenn to the CNR attached to the decree of the NOTARY_ATTORNEYwhich necessarily has a “servant” nature with respect to the intervention under the jurisdiction of the judicial authority, through the display by each of them of a name slip for the guest sector of the stadium and the identity document in their possession, the defense complaints must be considered completely non-specific, focusing on an alleged collective responsibility which finds no confirmation in the motivation of the contested validation.
The second reason, which is based on an assumption, the failure to read, does not escape a similar fate COMPANY_REASON defense briefs, clearly contradicted by the reading of the burdened provision which not only expressly mentions them, but analytically refutes them, highlighting, with correct arguments from a point of law and logic from a point of fact, the individual responsibility for the fate of the measure.

The appeals must, be declared inadmissible, following this outcome with the burden COMPANY_REASON costs of the proceedings, as well“`html