Benfica was acquitted of 10 charges related to the support of an organized group of supporters.
The Lisbon Criminal Court upheld the Reds’ appeal and withdrew the fine and the match in a closed room.
Benfica has been punished by the authorities for the prevention and combat of violence in sports (APCVD) in a closed-door match with a fine of € 60,000 on suspicion of supporting an organized group of unregistered supporters. rice field.
In a 60-page report, the court said, “What was the act adopted by the appellant? [Benfica] It does not constitute a prohibited act of support.
«Therefore, by allowing banners and stripes to enter the cheerleader sector above, the appellant promotes their active discrimination in relation to other supporters and gives them freedom of action and expression. We cannot conclude that we will give. This accessibility is required by law and is not allowed by other fans or spectators at all ».
Here are some sections:
«Therefore, legislators intend to enhance the security of sports shows by creating special areas for supporter access and permanence, and only in these areas stated in the proven facts. You can enter the choreography materials that have been done. The high-risk show GOA also said that only games in these areas can be watched. Therefore, what is stated in the proven facts is an offense, and what is stated in the proven facts is not confused with the support described in the art. 07/30 Law No. 39/2009 0140/2. “
It must also be said that the legal interpretations advocated here are undoubtedly under the provisions of art and are based on the unification of the entire legal system. Civil law and art 090. RGCO 3 taking into account that the new regime is particularly advantageous.
Now, if the purpose and goodness actually protected by law were not questioned — safety, under penalties, shows a breach, the lack of a legal constitution of a group of supporters to carry the belt. Violation of the principles of equality and freedom of expression stipulated in the Constitution, that is, art. CRP 13 and 37-1, not grouped by having the same symptoms in skilled citizens.
Therefore, the acts described in the facts based on the judgment do not meet the specific requirements of the norm and cannot be included in the legal provisions contained in the conviction in this case. Also, infringement of profits is not protected there.
Therefore, it is unforgiving to conclude that the actions adopted by the appellant do not constitute a prohibited act of support for the conditions and purposes of Law No. 1. 39/2009 on July 30, 2009.
The court also understands that in any of the alleged violations, both the objective and subjective elements of the executive branch type must be acquitted of the appellant. “