Apart from that, the theoretical option to revise the one-sided distribution by subsequent decisions sec. The effort to give an empirically validated answer is confronted with a series of methodological problems. The study analysed inter alia the reconviction rates of all persons who had either been convicted and received a non-custodial sanction by German courts in , or been released from imprisonment or a custodial preventive measure in ; in both cases the period under observation was three years. Jehle and Albrecht found that, in this group, In the first case, the reconviction rates were considerably lower 5.
Reconvictions because of serious offences similar to the first offence are not as frequent as a misreading of the Jehle and Albrecht figures might suggest. Empirical data, in the contrary, suggest that the likelihood of further offences is overestimated in judicial practice. Similar results were shown in a study by Michael Alex from Bochum University.
In his study, Alex examined a sample of high-risk offenders who had to be released from prison, after they had served their full sentence, although the public prosecutor still considered them dangerous. In more than half of the cases These and similar results in other studies 45 x Kinzig , above n.
As serious offences have a low base rate the more serious the lower it is , the prediction of future offences is burdened with the methodological problem that false positives will inevitably be predicted more often than false negatives. Prediction is, in other words, burdened with a systematic bias that seems to be unknown to the majority of courts but that becomes apparent in the results of empirical research.
Moreover, it must be noted that the factual basis of prediction is often quite thin. The future development of many of the risk and protective factors considered relevant by most prediction methods e. The necessity and the adequacy of indeterminate supervision can in practice easily be misjudged.
It has already been pointed out that there are no means in German law that are as suitable as supervision to achieve the aim of public protection and that are at the same time less intrusive. Police law interventions are not necessarily less intrusive than post-release supervision. Civil law offers no alternatives as well.
In , a new law was enacted in Germany, which provides for the placement of persons who had to be released from preventive detention, because the retroactive application of indefinite post-sentence preventive detention was interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights as amounting to the retroactive imposition of a heavier penalty incompatible with European human rights law. These persons may be placed in closed institutions if they are considered to be of unsound mind cf. The act was held compatible with German constitutional law, provided it is interpreted in accordance with the constitution meaning that there must be a very high risk of further crimes with a very severe impact on the victims.
Placement in a closed institution thus is not a measure less intrusive than supervision and may therefore not be seen as an alternative. Neither may the appointment of a custodian to the convicted person be considered an alternative.
According to German civil law, a custodian may be appointed if a person by reason of a mental illness or a physical, mental or psychological handicap cannot take care of his affairs sec. The aim of the appointment, however, is not public protection but the safeguarding of the best interests of the person under custodianship sec.
The target groups thus are different; custodianship and supervision have objectives that must be kept apart clearly. Against this background, it may come as a surprise that there are some authors in German academic literature who are of the opinion that supervision is not compatible with the principle of proportionality. They bring the example of a high-risk offender who is sanctioned for a violent or a sex offence with imprisonment of, e. Because of the high risk of re-offending, the convicted person will not get an early release after sixteen months i.
Afterwards, he may have to spend up to ten years in preventive detention sec. The convicted person is thus under the control of the criminal justice authorities for up to seventeen years, although his punishment was only two years; this is considered disproportionate. The problem with examples like this is that they obtain their persuasive power only from the severity of offence committed in the past, but do not give any information on the seriousness and likelihood of the future offences.
Because the duration of preventive detention has to be suspended as soon as it can be expected that the offender will not commit further offences if released sec. The individual risk may, however, be sufficient to justify the measure of supervision because supervision is a non-custodial measure and therefore less intrusive than preventive detention. As a result, it seems inevitable to accept that, in the given example, supervision probably is not a disproportionate means of control. The example once again shows that the potential of the principle of proportionality is limited because it does not provide for the difficulties to predict reliably dangers to the public.
Danger and necessity are concepts that can be described and applied in theory better than in practice. What remains is unease about a preponderance in public policy of security considerations over liberty rights. In this context, it seems worthwhile to note that Kinzig and Baur made a highly interesting suggestion that aims at a legislative re-evaluation of the competing interests. The authors recommend a reduction in the maximum duration of supervision from presently five years sec. As the diverging interests at hand, public protection as well as liberty rights, are provided for by this suggestion in a balanced and responsible way, it cannot be excluded that the proposition might be taken up by German public policy.
The German Federal Constitutional Court ruled in its judgement of 4 May that the European Convention on Human Rights does not rank higher or on the same level as German constitutional law but that it ranks below the constitution and has only the legal force of ordinary federal law. A violation of European human rights can therefore not be contested by an appeal to the German Constitutional Court. The German constitution, i. The German Constitutional Court identified as one of the examples for such a weakening the so-called multipolar settings involving more than one affected party, where the rights involved needed to be carefully balanced against each other and where more protection given to one party would inevitably imply less protection for the other.
In the s, the German Constitutional Court ruled that supervision imposed by law as an automatic consequence of release after two years of imprisonment was consistent with the principle of proportionality. In those days, the European Convention was not paid much attention to by the German judiciary, though, and the duration of supervision was limited to a maximum of five years. The question thus arises as to whether the law which was expanded in and with the option of indeterminate supervision is still in accordance with European fundamental rights, even if these only indirectly influence the interpretation and practice of German national law.
From the German perspective, the distinction may seem to be only of minor importance because the specific safeguards for deprivation of liberty in Article Basic Law namely formal law and judicial order are undoubtedly met, but Article 5 ECHR constitutes additional safeguards, which must be met if deprivation of liberty is under scrutiny.
In the Guzzardi case, the European Court specified some of the criteria relevant to the distinction between deprivation and restriction of liberty, above all type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the particular measure. Italy , Applic. Of these, duration is a criterion that might give cause to classify supervision as deprivation of liberty, because the preventive measure may in exceptional cases last for life, while all other criteria suggest that the convicted person is not deprived of but only restricted in his liberty. The duration of a measure alone, however, may hardly be sufficient to exclusively decide on the appropriate classification of the measure, rather it seems necessary to make an overall assessment of the given criteria.
Such an overall assessment would focus on the function of the measure and emphasise the fact that supervision serves as a non-custodial means in the transition process between custody and unrestricted liberty. From the functional point of view, supervision as an abstract sanction category should therefore rather be classified as merely a restrictive measure, which would have the consequence that the safeguards of Article 5 ECHR do not apply. A different evaluation might come to mind if supervision is seen in connection with particular directions by which the offender is de facto prevented from leaving certain places or areas, e.
Esser, above n. If these cases are judged as deprivation of liberty, they have to comply with the safeguards of the Convention, i. Both options have their own disadvantages. So far, the problem has not been discussed in Germany. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that the connection between the conviction and the said directions probably is sufficient enough to comply with the Convention. If supervision is considered a restriction of liberty, another fundamental right comes into view that is guaranteed in German national law as well as in European law: the right not to be punished twice Art.
Nevertheless, technically a violation of the basic right not to be punished twice must be rejected, first because supervision is not considered a form of punishment in Germany but a preventive measure , and second because it is not construed as an independent judgement, but as a legal, i. The judicial decisions that follow after release e. Neither does supervision, by the way, violate the right that there must be no punishment without law Art.
Cyprus , Applic. Thus in the end, it is the general principle of proportionality, again, which has to be examined, because in German legal thinking any measure by state authorities that is an interference with the general freedom of action granted by German constitutional law Art. It has already been pointed out that the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled as early as that preventive supervision is fully consistent with the principle of proportionality because it may be applied only in those cases in which further offences are expected.
It is highly probable that the Constitutional Court would reaffirm its earlier decision and hold that supervision is still in accordance with the fundamental rights laid down in the German constitution and the European Convention. This finding may seem somewhat disillusioning, but it should be noted that it refers to supervision as only an abstract sanction category, defined by law. It does not refer to the execution of supervision in particular cases, especially to the legitimacy of certain subsequent decisions on the directions imposed on the convicted offender after release.
In Germany, freedom of movement may only be restricted in the way that the convicted person is directed not to leave his place of domicile or a specified area without the permission of the supervising authority sec.
He may only be directed to report to an employment agency sec. The Federal Constitutional Court, too, had to decide several cases in which individual rights had to be balanced against public security interests. In the beginning of , it found in an interim decision that the direction to carry the equipment for electronic monitoring sec.
In: Hildebrandt, Alexandra Hrsg. The first of the legislative orders designed to regulate entry to football stadiums was introduced by the Public Order Act UK. This dismissal of the issue on the part of the DFB did little to solve the actual problems, but it did draw attention to the subject amongst the wider public. Tilgher dagegen geht weiter, und bewegt sich auf eine Art rechten Titoismus zu. Verhalten Hooligans.
On the other hand, some years earlier, it ruled that the direction not to publish right-wing ideas for a period of five years after release sec. Summing up, it must be concluded that the human rights perspective certainly plays a role in German judicature, but that this role is revealed mainly in connection with the execution of supervision, not in connection with its imposition by law or its function as an abstract sanction category.
Supervision is a combination of control and social support that starts off when a convicted person is released from prison or a custodial preventive measure. Regularly the period of supervision lasts for five years, but it can be shortened as well as extended to indeterminate supervision. In addition, supervision can be combined with directions given to the convicted person to influence his conduct of life and make sure that no further offences are committed. As a result of the legal developments since , the constraints for the imposition and execution of supervision are lower in the case of convicted sex offenders than they are in other cases.
While supervision is regularly put into operation, if a convicted person is released from prison after having fully served for at least two years, it is only one year in the case of sex offenders sec. While the requirements for indeterminate supervision are generally quite strict sec. This gives the courts a wide discretion. Against this background one might say that in Germany, too, the legal position of convicted sex offenders is quite exceptional.
While in the vast majority of cases supervision is imposed by law in Germany, i. Suitability, necessity and adequacy are the criteria that are of overall importance in this context. All restrictions imposed upon the convicted person are justified if, and to the degree that, they are suitable, necessary and adequate to achieve the aim of public protection, i. Its reliance on the accuracy of empirical prediction methods delimits the protective function of the proportionality principle to guide and control judicial decisions in the field of preventive sanctions. What is expected by the law, clear and unambiguous assessments on the likelihood and the seriousness of future offences, can, however, hardly be provided for in practice, neither by the courts nor by psychiatric, psychological or criminological expert witnesses.
The consequence is in practice a somewhat cloudy mixture of non-distinctive considerations that are flawed by a systematic bias in that they overestimate the risk of re-offending.
Success has been hard to come by since then. The club managed to sustain its position in the third division throughout the nineties, but only on a couple of occasions threatened to make the step up to the 2. Away from the sporting side of things, FC Sachsen Leipzig developed a unique active fan scene around the turn of the millennium. Their ever-present vocal support at FC Sachsen was backed up with colourful, imaginative fan choreographies. Diablos Leutzsch increasingly lost touch with what they saw as the club abandoning its traditions in the search of sporting success.
Diablos Leutzsch decided to resurrect the former name BSG Chemie Leipzig and formed their own club down in the 13 th tier. Of course, this led to fractures among the fan scene. Many older FC Sachsen Leipzig fans saw the departure of the Diablos as treachery, the abandonment of the club in its hour of need. With the Diablos gone, the Alfred Kunze Sportpark was practically silent and the feisty atmospheres of less than a decade ago merely a memory.
Whether that was entirely true will never be found out, but Engel has continued his anti-ultra sentiment ever since. Ever since its foundation, the club has been shrouded in mystery and, unfortunately, the right-wing element that was present at FC Sachsen in the latter days seems to have taken hold. As a Chemie-supporting friend put it, the existence of SG Leipzig-Leutzsch is, in principle, not a bad thing, given that all the wankers go there instead of to BSG Chemie.
On a cold and rainy autumn day at the start of the season, the two met for the first time and played out a drab Unfortunately, despite a promising start, BSG Chemie neared the end of the season occupying an upper mid-table position, out of touch of the two promotion spots. SG Leipzig-Leutzsch also had nothing to play for, and so the second meeting in April was all about bragging rights. A glorious for BSG Chemie which was duly celebrated like a title win in a rammed away end. Approaching the ground on Sunday for the first derby of the new season, it was soon clear that something was different.
It quickly transpired that Chemie fans were boycotting the match, instead choosing to have a barbecue and a bit of a party outside the ground. Make of that what you will. In the actual match, SG Leipzig-Leutzsch — who quite unbelievably played in orange bibs on account of the green-green colour clash — ran out winners. The general consensus outside the ground was that the first one was offside and the second was handball. Word went round before the derby on Sunday that the SG Leipzig-Leutzsch management needed average crowds of 2, to cover costs.
As for BSG Chemie, the committed fanbase rooted in ultra culture is a real asset and, I hope, as long as they are behind the team, they have a chance of surviving and revisiting some of the glory days. No form of violence will be tolerated, nor will the use of pyrotechnics in stadia. Stadium regulations must be enforced and sanctions must be consistent.
The 54 members of the Bundesliga, 2. Liga were invited to sign and pledge their commitment to the code of conduct. With the sole exception of FC Union Berlin, all did so. At the beginning of the season, ultras and other fans from all over the country used the international break in September to join forces and protest for the preservation of fan culture. All rivalries were forgotten for one day as 40, fans, mainly ultras, marched through Berlin.
The protest attracted international attention and issues included fan-friendly kick-off times, the abolition of stadium bans and the legalisation of pyrotechnics. Fans of 1. Following on from the successful protest, a lobby group was formed by the name of Pyrotechnik legalisieren! Emotionen respektieren! The initiative laid down clear regulations for they saw as the safe use of pyrotechnics: Flares should be lit by nominated, registered people at defined points in time and in specific areas of the stadium — no firecrackers, no fireworks and absolutely no throwing.
The group soon gathered support far and wide — not simply from ultra groups or fan representatives, but also from clubs themselves. The campaign was naturally supported by a large number of the banned pyrotechnic displays up and down the country, with ultras deliberately and consciously complying with the regulations put forward by the Pyrotechnik legalisieren initiative. Explosive experts, the local authorities, and representatives of the police and fire brigade would all be involved. It appeared as though the DFB had finally acknowledged the willingness of the ultra groups to engage in real dialogue.
In response to this move, ultra groups held their promise of no pyrotechnics over the first three matchdays. This was seen to be a response to the pledge from the DFB that if ultras demonstrated how disciplined they could be, they would give then the chance to test out flares in a controlled environment.
The anticipation grew and grew — ultras were tantalisingly close to a reality where lighting a flare did not automatically lead to a three-year stadium ban. Although not officially released by the DFB, the Pyrotechnik legalisieren initiative managed to get hold of said expert reports and saw that the opposite had actually been concluded: Pyrotechnics would pose no additional threat to football fans provided they were used correctly and within a controlled framework.
The disappointment was huge. After months of negotiations, the DFB had simply said Nein. This article concludes with a summary of the situation in a non-European nation, Australia. Sporting events have been marred by fights and clashes between spectators, if not since the inception of organised sport, then at least since the end of the 19 th century. England is the focus of this essay for several reasons.
Hooliganism reached its zenith in , when, during the European Cup final between Juventus Turin and Liverpool at Heysel Stadium in Brussels, 39 spectators died. The effects of English hooliganism in the s and s also led to the introduction of widespread reforms by both the Government and the football authorities to combat the problem. The topic of violence in football has also attracted frequent academic comment,  in particular contributions confined to specific aspects of the issue. Crowd violence or more generally, crowd and safety management is also the subject of numerous practice-oriented and generalist literature aimed at sports managers or the general public.
This article examines the legal and policy measures introduced to respond to football hooliganism in England and Wales. Some other measures, relating to the improvement of sports infrastructure, will also be briefly discussed as they have made stadiums safer and reduced crowd disorder. On the basis of the commentary and assumptions drawn from statistics which show a decline in hooliganism, the conclusion can reasonably be drawn that the reforms that have been introduced in England to combat hooliganism have been effective and good policy in the English football context.
It is more problematic, however, to identify the particular effects of any specific measure in reducing hooliganism within the overall model, or indeed, the precise or cumulative effects of the overall model. Careful consideration needs to be given to the potential benefits that could be expected from the adoption of some or all of the English reforms and how to implement those reforms in different circumstances. Noting this gap in the analysis, the influence of the English model in some other countries will then be examined to illustrate the need to adapt reforms in light of the local circumstances and culture.
This paper proceeds in three main parts. Part II will critically describe the English system, including the measures employed by the state to manage supporters, organisers of sports events and third parties, together with the measures implemented by the clubs and the league. Part III will examine the influence of the English system abroad and its use in other countries as a model of good practice — in particular France, Belgium, Italy, Germany and Switzerland. Part IV will conclude with a summary of the situation in a. This Part will be devoted to the description and the critical analysis of the legal and regulatory measures introduced by England and English clubs in order to combat hooliganism.
In this context, the attempt will be made to demonstrate that even if the current system is not perfect, it has reached a satisfactory threshold as the result of a long process spanning several decades. These are discussed in the context of the various reports produced by inquiries established by the Government in response to specific incidents. Several United Kingdom government reports concerning the safety and security of spectators and violence in stadiums were written after various incidents which occurred during the 20 th century.
The Lang Report specifically concerned the behaviour of spectators  and the Wheatley Report , written following the disaster at Ibrox Park Glasgow which involved the death of 66 spectators in a stampede,  led to the Safety of Sports Ground Act UK which implemented the recommendations initially made in the Moelwyn Hughes Report, but which had not been acted upon. The Popplewell Report investigated the fire of the Bradford stadium, the Heysel events that occurred two weeks later and a hooligan-related death at Birmingham. Illustrating connections between safety and hooliganism, the fire extinguishers were removed from the stadium for fear that they would be used by hooligans as missiles.
Recommendations flowing from these reports included requiring clubs to have licences in order to host football matches at their stadiums and the introduction of video surveillance systems. Greater seating capacity in stadiums, the creation of a membership scheme for all spectators and penalties for clubs not complying with their obligations were also recommended. Until the Heysel disaster in , the various reports struggled to produce substantial legislative reform, with matters of security in stadiums remaining in the purview of sporting clubs in accordance with a policy of self-regulation and the traditional exclusion of sport from legislative regulation.
In , at the Hillsborough stadium in Sheffield, England during an FA Cup semifinal match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest football clubs, uncontrolled spectator movements resulted in spectators being crushed, causing the deaths of 96 people and nearly injuries. In the Taylor Report , made following the Hillsborough stadium incident,  the central issues were stadium infrastructure and crowd management improvement. Ultimately, in , the Report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel conclusively established that fans were not responsible for the deaths and that, in fact, authorities had attempted to conceal what had happened.
This report led to apologies from the UK Prime Minister and others. Following the Taylor Report in , an important building and stadium improvement program was established in England, which led to the construction of more than 20 stadiums and over new stands. The Hillsborough disaster is credited with bringing a radically different approach to safety in football. Reform was forced upon reluctant clubs. Hooliganism, not safety, had brought football into the arena of high politics. The next section addresses the legal measures introduced by the Government in order to combat hooliganism.
Spectators are subject to a general body of law. Offences aimed at protecting against violence or damage to property apply in the normal way.
The current principal legislation relevant in this context in England and Wales can be found in a number of different Acts:. As will be seen, certain provisions concern supporters while others are aimed at the organisers of sporting events. The state measures aimed at supporters include the creation and use of a database, specific sports- and football-related offences, banning orders, the obligation to report to a police station, the prohibition to leave the territory and detention in police custody. A database has been set up to counter hooliganism in England.
This database, which has undergone various organisational changes, has now been in existence for several decades. This database contains the details of people involved or suspected of being involved in football-related disorders. Next, the specific offences introduced by the British Government in order to fight hooliganism are considered. The Government has introduced several sports- or football-related legislative measures to combat hooliganism. Under the Sporting Events Control of Alcohol etc Act UK , any person who is drunk at a sporting venue, brings alcohol inside or possesses alcohol during a match is guilty of an offence.
Therefore, some legal commentators consider that these provisions may catch not only highly intoxicated supporters, but also those who may be less intoxicated. Further to these restrictions, the intoxication of supporters on public transport is also forbidden, as is the possession of alcohol in public transport vehicles. Under the Sporting Events Control of Alcohol etc Act UK ,  any person who enters or tries to enter a football ground with fireworks, or possesses fireworks during a sports event, is guilty of an offence. In contrast, matches, cigarette lighters or heaters are permitted.
The Football Offences Act UK prohibits spectators throwing missiles onto the pitch or to any areas where spectators or any other people are or may be present. In reaction to these incidents, campaigns against racism were launched by private entities. Subsequent to its introduction, this legislation had to be amended to ensure that it covered solitary actions.
It is an offence for a person at a designated football match to go onto the playing area, or any area adjacent to the playing area to which spectators are not generally admitted, without lawful authority or lawful excuse which shall be for him to prove. In addition to these specific measures, legislation provides for the banning of individuals who are regarded as dangerous from stadiums.
Removal orders from stadiums that exist in public law under state legislation coexist alongside the private law stadium bans imposed by the clubs. The first of the legislative orders designed to regulate entry to football stadiums was introduced by the Public Order Act UK. In spite of its potential to be a powerful tool in regulating misbehaviour at football matches, it appeared quickly that the exclusion orders were inefficient with regards to disorder occurring abroad.
The Football Spectators Act UK was adopted in order to govern disciplinary and criminal proceedings brought against hooligans. If the individual served with the order failed to report as required to a police station without reasonable excuse, they could be imprisoned for one month. Subsequently, amendments introduced by more general legislation, such as the Violent Crime Reduction Act UK , modified the Football Spectators Act UK to increase the length of time an individual could be banned after receiving a banning order.
A banning order is now automatically in effect for both domestic and international matches,  meaning that a person subject to a banning order cannot go to any stadium in England or abroad. This includes conduct not immediately related to football, such as transit to and from the game. The role of the police will also be briefly examined. As mentioned above, the banned individual cannot attend a match in the United Kingdom or abroad. If it appears to the court that there are such circumstances, the court is required to state those reasons in open court.
This measure consists of holding an individual in police premises in order to prevent him or her from participating in violence during sports events. Detention in custody for periods up to six hours is provided for in s 21A of the Football Spectators Act UK , which allows a constable in uniform to detain a British citizen if he or she has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person will cause violence or that they have engaged in violent acts.
The success of the fight against hooliganism in the United Kingdom is largely attributed to the smooth operation of its police forces. In the s, the British police did not hesitate to take extreme measures — such as telephone tapping, shadowing and infiltration — to conduct criminal investigations against some groups of suspected hooligans. Mobile officers  patrol the streets around the stadium and the city where football matches are being held.
Hooligans. Gewalt in Fußballstadien (German Edition) [Marjan Rosetz] on pymybapifysy.tk *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Studienarbeit aus dem Jahr Jugendliche Gewalt am Beispiel der Jugendkultur von Hooligans (German Edition) von Hooligans (German Edition) (German) Paperback – November 29, da man Hooligans im Besonderen mit Gewalt im Fußballstadion verbindet.
British Transport Police officers regularly escort trains carrying groups of football fans across the country and on the London Underground system. In addition, plain-clothes detectives indirectly contribute to the maintenance of order. If necessary, they also radio the information to the mobile officers. Moreover, senior officers including sergeants set out procedures to be followed on match day and supervise the football policing efforts. Furthermore, CCTV closed-circuit television operators monitor the supporters via cameras in the city centre and the stadium.
Finally, more stewards are being employed at football matches to ensure the efficient running of games, as per a recommendation from the Taylor Report. In addition to these measures directed at spectators, there are a range of state measures aimed at the organisers of sports events and third parties. In parallel to the spectator-related measures outlined above, specific provisions also exist which relate to the organisers of sports events. It should be noted that in England, clubs usually own stadiums, unlike Australia, France, Italy and Switzerland, where the sports clubs are generally tenants.
The Football Spectators Act UK created the FLA, which was responsible for issuing licences to stadiums that accommodate spectators during matches. In this context, it identified the FLA as one of the organisations to be abolished. Its expertise and functions were then transferred to another body, the Sports Ground Safety Authority. Under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act UK , each football club that owns a stadium of a significant capacity must possess a safety certificate indicating that the stadium is safe.
The Act also provides an emergency procedure to prohibit or restrict the admission of spectators to the whole or a specific part of the ground, if they may be exposed to serious risk. In accordance with s 11 of the Football Spectators Act UK , the clubs belonging to the first two divisions of the championship must ensure all spectators are seated.
This measure, introduced in to primarily deal with the risk of crowd crushing, also helped to reduce crowd disorder in grounds by breaking up groups which might have congregated together. Similarly, internal fences around spectator areas were removed. A prohibition on the unauthorised sale of tickets ensures that rival supporters are not in the same bleachers in a stadium. The prohibition is effected by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act UK ,  which provides for the imposition of a fine for the sale of tickets by unauthorised people.
This concludes the description of the principal state measures introduced to fight against hooliganism. These reforms have been the subject of some criticisms and have received some judicial consideration, which are described below. According to some commentators, some of the measures outlined above pursue hooligans to a degree that violates civil liberties and human rights.
These arguments have not found favour with the Court of Appeal  of England and Wales, which has completely rejected these criticisms in a. Another example of potentially counterproductive effects raised by critics of the reforms relates to the use of video surveillance. This, it is argued, has led to incidents being effectively moved out of stadiums where video surveillance is particularly effective.
Incidents now take place around the stadiums, and occur before or after matches. Other critics argue that hooliganism has not been completely defeated because it is not properly understood. They argue that the Government focuses too much on gangs travelling to cause trouble, to the detriment of general risks associated with crowd management. Yet others note that hooligans are now significantly in the minority and less apparent, which makes them more dangerous and committed than before.
Finally, the legislation is sometimes described as being implemented to answer populist will rather than to answer a real need. Thus, banning orders do not, for instance, control what happens in pubs and clubs when matches are shown on televisions. The anti-hooligan legal framework has been tested in the courts on several occasions.
The appellants argued, in particular, that the banning orders derogated from their positive rights on freedom of movement and freedom to leave their home country. The appellants further invoked the argument that this legislation infringed arts 6 and 8 of the ECHR a right to a fair trial and freedom of movement, respectively. Furthermore, the evidence gathered against them was said to be insufficient to justify the bans, since no criminal conviction was required. Restrictions on the right could be imposed in some circumstances, such as to protect order and public safety.
Examining the issue from the perspective of art 6 of the ECHR , the Court considered that banning orders were not criminal but civil, since their purpose was preventative and not punitive. On a broader level, the Court noted that the legislation fulfilled the requirements of European states.
The European member states requested that the British Government take measures to prevent acts of violence of its citizens abroad,  as any new violent acts would likely lead to further exclusion of English clubs from European competitions, producing significant financial consequences. While the test applied by the Court, in conducting a balancing of relevant interests, may not always have been applied strictly correctly in subsequent cases,  and despite later criticism by commentators,  this judgment must be credited with providing a number of significant clarifications in the operation of the laws.
It established that, if applied correctly,  banning orders  are lawful as a matter of community law and the ECHR. It is now appropriate to describe the main measures implemented by the clubs and the League in the fight against hooliganism. To the extent that it can be assumed that the legislation passed by the British Government was effective in reducing hooliganism,  measures implemented by the clubs may similarly be assumed to have contributed either in combination or in isolation to this decrease.
This phenomenon, combined with a large number of regular season ticket holders who have allocated seats and who can therefore be more easily identified if they misbehave , contributed to make the environment in stadiums more predictable and orderly. For its part, the FA imposes certain obligations on clubs and organisers of sporting events, some of which are modelled on state laws.
The increase in ticket prices, which had the effect of excluding certain categories of people and, according to some observers, tarnishing the atmosphere in the stadiums, is often seen negatively. It is also argued that, using the example of Germany, alternatives exist to measures such as higher ticket prices and all-seated stadiums. Germany, although less affected by hooliganism, has managed through large standing areas and controlled seat prices to attract on average more supporters per game, including a higher proportion of women and young fans, than the English Premier League games.
Finally, it is noted that the criticisms about the state banning orders based on civil liberties and human rights grounds are not relevant in relation to the bans implemented by the clubs. These bans are strictly a matter of contract paying to watch a football match and property law. It is therefore not a human rights issue. Regardless of the outcomes that have followed the measures described above, it is clear that English hooliganism has not completely disappeared.
Nevertheless, the total number of people arrested in connection with all international and domestic football matches involving teams from, or representing, England and Wales has steadily been declining since the early s, from cases for the —92 season, to in —97, in —11 and to in — For the —13 season, the Home Office statistics show that the total attendance is in excess of 39 million at football matches. Furthermore, the average number of arrests inside and outside of stadiums is less than one per match, and 58 per cent of all matches had no police presence.
The number of football banning orders has also decreased by 11 per cent from on 9 November to on 20 September and down Finally, 92 per cent of the individuals whose orders have expired since are considered to be no longer a risk to football disorder. In light of the above analysis, the argument can be advanced that the English reforms have had an extremely positive impact in the fight against hooliganism and were good policy in the English football context. However, a few points need to be made regarding such an argument. First, the reforms remain open to some criticism.
At the state level, the issue of human rights appears to be the most problematic. Even if this system has survived judicial challenge, both the courts and the police must ensure that their actions remain fair and proportionate in each case. Otherwise this may lead to unfair situations and result in a counterproductive effect.
Secondly, some caution may be required before being too definitive about the effects of the reforms themselves. At a high level, the results appear to be demonstrable.