Abstract

This article is dedicated to the hooliganism offense committed by actions grossly violating public order, involving the application of violence to persons (art.287 of the Criminal Code). In this regard, the explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Justice in its judgment no.4 of June 19, 2006 „On Judicial Practice in Criminal Crimes Against Hooliganism” were used in terms of legal provisions, doctrinal approaches and judicial practice. It has been shown that the phrase „actions grossly violating public order” is vague and gives to the persons authorized to apply the criminal law a wide margin of appreciation. However, it has been noted that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights does not reject the idea that in certain circumstances the definitions may have a certain amount of ambiguity, particularly in fields in which the situation changes according to the prevailing views of society. But, it should not transform the text of the law that criminalizes hooliganism into a „rubber norm” or a „bottomless bag”. The provision in question should be applied with a high threshold so as not to trivialize the criminal justice. It has also been stressed that the gross violation of public order by itself (without the adjoining action – application of violence against individuals) does not include all the constitutive elements of the hooliganism offense. This aspect has not been understood in some cases in judicial practice. It is argued that in such situations, art.354 „Minor Hooliganism” of the Contravention Code may be applied, which is a contravention that, in fact, does not imply the application of violence. Not least, it has been shown that the violence exercised in the context of the hooliganism offense can result in a slight injury to body or health integrity, either with minor injury, which does not imply either short-term health disorder or insignificant and stable loss of working capacity.

Authors and Affiliations