Ministers' Deputies
Information Documents



European Convention on Spectator Violence and Misbehaviour at Sport Events and in particular at Football Matches
19th meeting of the Standing Committee (T-RV) (Strasbourg, 9 and 10 June 1999)

Meeting Report

CM/Inf(99)52 26 August 1999

The meeting was opened by Mr Juan Ramon Beorlegui Ibars (Spain), Chair of the Standing Committee.

The Chair welcomed Israel's representative, who was participating in the meeting as a guest observer.

The list of participants is to be found in Appendix 2.

The agenda was adopted as set out in Appendix 1.

The Secretariat informed the Standing Committee that so far the Convention had been signed by 34 countries, and ratified by 29. There had been no new ratifications since the Standing Committee's 18th meeting, held on the same dates the previous year. The latest ratification, by Romania, had taken place on 19 May 1998 and had come into force on 1 July 1998.

The Chair congratulated the French authorities on the quality of the organisation of France '98 and the smooth running of the event. He reminded participants that the Standing Committee had held a World Cup evaluation meeting in Strasbourg on 29 and 30 October 1998. The report of that meeting was to be found in document T-RV (98) 16.

He considered that the Standing Committee had done some remarkable work since the signature of the Convention in 1985 and had helped to reduce the amount of violence. During the World Cup no serious incident had taken place inside the stadiums. Unfortunately, the football violence problem had to a large extent moved to inner-city areas, often merging with urban violence.

On the other hand, the way ticket sales for the World Cup had been managed left considerable room for improvement. Separation of supporters of rival teams had sometimes proved impossible. A black market for tickets had emerged. Some people who had paid through travel agencies had found themselves without a ticket on the day of the match.

The representative of Luxembourg asked France's representative what had been the outcome of the proceedings concerning ticketing brought against the French World Cup organising committee (the CFO) before the European Commission. The French delegation said the proceedings had not yet reached a conclusion, but if it was penalised the CFO intended to appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Communities.

The representatives of the Netherlands, Belgium and UEFA described the preparations for Euro 2000.

Mr Fries Heinis (Security Manager, Euro 2000 Foundation) showed a number of transparencies on the preparations. He pointed out that for the first time two countries would be co-hosting a European football championship. Sixteen national teams would take part in the final stage of 31 matches, which would be played over three weeks. 1.2 million spectators were expected. The initial budget for holding the tournament was 550,000 euros. 4,200 people (including volunteers) would be involved in organising what was intended to be a festive sports event.

The tournament would be held under the responsibility of UEFA, the two host countries' national football associations (the KNVB for the Netherlands and the KBVB for Belgium) and the Euro 2000 Board, set up by the two national associations. The eight cities hosting matches would be Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Arnhem and Eindhoven in the Netherlands and Brussels, Bruges, Liège and Charleroi in Belgium.

Security would be the responsibility of the championship organisers inside stadiums, and of the police outside. Stewards would have an important role in the arrangements planned by the Euro 2000 Board. Their responsibilities and tasks were defined in accordance with domestic law and the Standing Committee's recommendations. Following the French example, there should be one steward per one hundred spectators. Stewards from the Netherlands who had gone with their national team to the World Cup in France already had considerable experience. Use of stewards from other participating countries was also being envisaged.

The ticketing system for Euro 2000 would be based on the following principles: tickets would be "non-transferable"; individuals would be allowed to purchase only two tickets per match; the Euro 2000 Board would not sell tickets through tour operators or travel agencies; ticket buyers' personal data would be recorded (such as names, addresses, dates of birth and account numbers).

Tickets would be allocated as follows: 34% to the general public; 34% to the national federations of the two countries playing each match; 14% to sponsors; 8% to the press; 5% to guests and 5% to UEFA. The first batch of tickets was already on sale, and the organisers had received 134,000 applications to purchase tickets so far.

Mr Heinis said the opening match would be played in Brussels on 10 June 2000, i.e. in 365 days' time, and the final in Rotterdam on 2 July 2000. The tournament, which had been entitled "Football without frontiers", was a great challenge to the organisers, who aimed to make it a successful, enjoyable feast of football.

Mr Theo Brekelmans (Police Co-ordinator of the Euro 2000 Project, Netherlands) described police security arrangements for Euro 2000. He pointed out that holding the tournament in two different countries complicated matters. Both countries were densely populated, and the event was scheduled to take place during what was already a busy holiday and festive period under normal circumstances. Since the distances were small, it would be very easy for spectators to travel between venues in the two countries. Moreover, the two host countries had long histories of football hooliganism.

There were significant differences between the two countries in terms of culture, legislation and also the organisation of their police forces.

To guarantee a uniform approach, their governments had concluded a treaty on transfrontier co-operation between the two police forces, including provisions on police co-operation, exchange of information, training and education, etc.

A bill was before the Netherlands parliament to allow preventive administrative arrests of potential troublemakers, as was already the case in Belgium. The police's tolerance threshold would be low. Mr Brekelmans then gave a slide presentation on the proposed security arrangements and the bilateral co-ordination of these measures.

Colonel Herman Bliki (Belgium) described the international police co-ordination and co-operation measures for Euro 2000, in particular the arrangements for intelligence gathering and processing. From the outset he specified that his aim in giving the presentation was to obtain the co-operation of the relevant authorities and departments in the other countries concerned, with a view, firstly, to collecting and processing information on the movements and behaviour of groups of supporters and, secondly, to arranging for a police delegation to accompany their national team's supporters, if deemed necessary by the Netherlands and Belgian police authorities.

At an organisational level, a Binational Intelligence Platform (BIP) would be set up in order to gather general information, i.e. information not restricted in any way by the police or the judicial authorities. Information reserved for police use would be handled by a Binational Police Intelligence Centre (BPIC). The BIP would have two offices, one in Belgium and one in the Netherlands, whereas the BPIC would be based solely in the Netherlands.

Each country would be asked to appoint a liaison officer and, if need be, spotters (police officers responsible for monitoring groups of supporters), a head of delegation, an operations co-ordinator and perhaps also a spokesperson to handle relations with the press. Any request for such assistance would be made to the countries concerned by the BPIC and would be based on an assessment of the risks.

Liaison officers might be called upon from mid-December 1999 and should therefore be appointed as soon as possible.

To ensure that spotters and operations co-ordinators acted in accordance with the guidelines given by the Belgian and Netherlands authorities, their work would have to be supervised, and this would entail a number of advance contacts. To that end, the function of spotter co-ordinator should therefore also be fulfilled by a police officer from the country of origin. Furthermore, foreign spotters would be accompanied by specially appointed and trained Belgian or Dutch police officers, who would act as guides. Each foreign delegation would moreover be placed under the supervision of a Belgian or Dutch officer. When travelling around Belgium or the Netherlands, foreign spotters would also be able to rely on a "local police guide".

Colonel Bliki then specified the criteria for selecting people to fulfil the above functions.

Mr Ernest Walker (UEFA) said that he chaired the UEFA working party on ticketing. UEFA's main concern was to avoid a repetition of what had happened at the 1998 World Cup. It had begun to define a ticketing strategy in consultation with the host countries and the European Commission, the aim being to find a solution acceptable to all concerned. The UEFA rules on ticketing for Euro 2000 were set out in document T-RV (99) Inf 4.

The main objective was to make Euro 2000 a safe event. An event of this kind inevitably drew crowds. He believed that there were three potential dangers: a black market for tickets might emerge; attempts might be made to forge tickets, as had recently been the case for the Champions League final in Barcelona, where 2,500 forged tickets had been intercepted; lastly, Euro 2000 might be used as a smokescreen by "determined hooligans".

Mr Walker added that there was also a risk that perfectly law-abiding, peaceful people might be treated like dangerous hooligans by police forces, who were sometimes a little over-zealous in enforcing the law. At the same time, it was of course always possible that trouble-makers and criminals might spoil the fun, and due account therefore had to be taken of all these factors. He would like the Standing Committee to issue a recommendation along these lines.

The Chair thanked the representatives of the Netherlands, Belgium and UEFA for their very comprehensive statements on the preparations for Euro 2000.

In answer to a question from Mr Alan Brown (United Kingdom) on proposed measures to prevent a black market in tickets, Mr Brekelmans said that responsibility for such measures naturally lay with the governments and the local police. The host countries had made a great effort, in particular to gather intelligence.

Mr Gabor Seprenyi (Hungary) asked how it would be ensured that tickets were non-transferable. Mr Walker said that all tickets would bear the buyer's name. Checking of tickets on entry into the stadiums would of course not be systematic, and it would hence not be possible to prevent people from exchanging tickets.

The Chair asked who would bear the policing costs. Colonel Bliki said that Belgium's initial estimate was for an amount of BEF 350 million, 10% of which was to be covered by the national football association. The cost was now expected to double, but the football federation's share of the expenditure would continue to be in the region of BEF 30 million. Mr Brekelmans said that in the Netherlands the cost had been estimated at 25 million euros and would be met out of the State budget; the organiser was therefore not expected to contribute.

5.4 Removal of perimeter fences

The Secretariat presented document T-RV (99) 5 on removal of fences in stadiums. Recent major football championships had been held mainly in stadiums with no fences. At the time of its evaluation of Euro '96 the Standing Committee had adopted a statement in favour of removing fences and had committed itself to adopting a strategy to that end. Most of the World Cup '98 matches had taken place in stadiums without fences, and this had strengthened the Standing Committee's position. In its evaluation report, FIFA concluded that removal of perimeter fences had not affected safety at the World Cup. UEFA had already taken steps to encourage its associations to move towards eliminating fences.

The Chair pointed out that measures such as good management of ticket sales, effective control of access to stadiums, the introduction of suitable legislation providing for appropriate penalties and good police co-operation were also preconditions for the removal of fences. The document recommended that removal should be carried out on a voluntary basis and gradually. The Chair proposed that the Standing Committee adopt the document as a recommendation.

Mr Nico Rop (Netherlands) added that removal of fences was primarily the responsibility of match organisers or stadium owners. Mr John de Quidt (United Kingdom) said that the basic policy of removing fences had already been laid down in the Standing Committee's 1997 statement. The prior conditions had been established in connection with that policy. Since the Hillsbrough disaster there had been many other incidents in third world countries. An integrated approach was therefore needed.

Ernest Walker (UEFA) told the Standing Committee that UEFA had adopted a policy of encouraging member associations to introduce the concept of fence-free stadiums in their respective countries. To that end, it had decided that the final matches of the most important UEFA competitions would be held only in cities having a stadium without fences. From UEFA's standpoint the document was entirely acceptable.

The proposed amendments were integrated into the final document.

The Chair pointed out that, with a view to the preparations for Euro 2000, the Standing Committee's list of national correspondents for bilateral contacts concerning football hooliganism had been updated and was included in the file of documents given to participants. He requested countries which had not yet provided the name of a national correspondent or which had not updated their national correspondent's data to contact the Secretariat to do so.

Mr Alan Brown presented a report on the legislative measures taken in England and Wales to ban convicted hooligans from attending domestic and international football matches. Current legislation provided for two kinds of measure. Firstly, a procedure allowing the courts to restrict known hooligans' ability to travel to matches outside England and Wales. The courts imposed restriction orders whereby offenders were required to report to a police station with five days' notice, the aim being to prevent them from being able to attend a match taking place in another country. The second category of measure was an exclusion order. It applied to all designated domestic matches and could be made on conviction of an offence committed at a football ground or on a journey to or from a match.

A bill was now before parliament to introduce new measures, including provisions on ticket sales, penalties for racist chanting at football matches, etc.

For further details of these measures, Mr Brown invited participants to consult his report, appearing in document T-RV (99) Inf 5.

The Chair thanked Mr Brown for his report, which was of particular relevance to the discussion on treatment of offenders.

Mr Nico Rop said that in the Netherlands it was the responsibility of stadium owners or match organisers to ban people from attending matches. Eight hundred such bans were currently in force. He pointed out that mutual recognition of bans necessitated bilateral agreements between countries, a finding also made in the study presented by the Spanish delegation in document T-RV (99) Inf 2.

Speaking on behalf of his country, the Chair said that Spain was ready to co-operate in such matters with the organisers of Euro 2000 and with other countries.

Concerning the draft recommendation on the identification and treatment of offenders and the exchange of intelligence during Euro 2000, Mr Rop said the Netherlands delegation had not had sufficient time to study the text and submit it to the Netherlands authorities. With regard to substance, he considered it pointless to confine the recommendation to the period of Euro 2000. He also suggested that stock should be taken of the existing measures.

With reference to the attendance bans mentioned in the United Kingdom delegation's report, Mr George J Michalas (Greece) asked what was the legal basis for the preventive arrest measures proposed in the draft recommendation submitted to the Standing Committee in document T-RV (99) 4.

The Chair was very much in favour of a general recommendation rather than a text limited in time. With regard to the legal aspects, he pointed out that the text had been examined by the Directorate of Legal Affairs of the Council of Europe before being submitted to the Standing Committee.

The Secretariat pointed out that exchange of intelligence had long been an area of concern for the Standing Committee. Every time it discussed the issue the committee came up against the legal problem of protection of personal data. A number of countries had nevertheless already taken one or more of the measures recommended in the text.

Another question frequently on the agenda was banning access to stadiums and the international validity of such measures.

These issues had also been raised in the declaration adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in the wake of the incidents which had taken place at the 1998 World Cup. The Secretariat had prepared the draft recommendation in order to provide a solution to these shared concerns in the context of Euro 2000. The fact that the text covered a limited period might win it broader support. The draft recommendation was intended to be workable and effective for Euro 2000. There was nothing to prevent the adoption of a similar text in preparation for another forthcoming tournament.

The Secretariat informed participants that two recommendations recently adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in support of sport were of particular interest to the Standing Committee. These were Recommendation No. R (99) 11 on the prohibition of free fighting contests, such as cage fighting, and Recommendation No. R (99) 10 on the granting of visas to sportsmen and sportswomen.

At their 15th informal meeting, held on Cyprus on 14 and 15 May 1998, the European Ministers for Sport had expressed concern at the growth of the phenomenon of so-called "sporting" violence and had voiced the desire to see free fights, such as cage fighting, banned. These violent contests, in which even mortal blows were not prohibited, jeopardised the health of contestants and had connections with unlawful activities.

At their meeting in Cyprus the sports ministers had also proposed that means should be sought to arrange easier visa procedures for sports people participating in international sports events. The text adopted by the Committee of Ministers recommended that states take steps to speed up the granting of visas to sportsmen and sportswomen taking part in sports events being held on their territory or, where applicable, crossing their territory, and, if possible, issue such visas free of charge or at least at a reduced rate.

Mr João Ary, secretary to the Committee on Culture and Education of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, thanked the Standing Committee for having invited him to the meeting. He said that 148 members of the Parliamentary Assembly had signed a written declaration strongly condemning the acts of violence perpetrated by hooligans during the 1998 World Cup in France. The declaration also stated that the European Convention on Spectator Violence and Misbehaviour at Sports Events and in particular at Football Matches was the appropriate framework for co-operation in this field.

With a view to Euro 2000, a motion for a recommendation was being tabled by Mr Gerrit Valk - a Netherlands MP - and others, and a report on football hooliganism was being prepared. To that end, the Sub-Committee on Youth and Sport had held a hearing on 10 May 1999, at which the Chair of the Standing Committee had been present. The report should be submitted to the Parliamentary Assembly at its September 1999 session.

The Secretariat informed participants of recent work done by the CDDS. The Standing Committee's attention was drawn to two matters. Firstly, a survey of domestic legislation on sport in the signatory states of the European Cultural Convention. The final version of the survey should shortly be distributed. It included a chapter on spectator violence and the T-RV Convention. One of the aspects dealt with was legal rules relating to the exchange of information, a subject of relevance to the Standing Committee's draft recommendation, discussed under items 5.5 and 5.6.

Another matter considered by the CDDS at its last meeting was sport and the environment. This would also be one of the themes of the next ministerial conference, which would take place in Bratislava in May 2000.

At its 22nd meeting (3 and 4 March 1999) the CDDS had adopted its programme of activities for the coming year. A continuing activity would be the role of sport in creating a democratic and tolerant society. The abridged meeting report and the list of decisions were to be found in document CDDS (99) 18.

More recently (on 6 and 7 May), the Bureau of the CDDS had taken a number of decisions concerning assistance to the Kosovo refugees. The sports sector's programme priorities had been partly redefined. The plans included providing sports equipment for refugees in the camps in Albania and Macedonia.

The Secretariat reminded participants that this was a joint project of the CDDS and the Standing Committee. Promoting tolerance was one of the Council of Europe's priorities for the future.

Work done in this field was in keeping with Article 3.5 of the convention, whereby the parties undertook to take appropriate social and educational measures to prevent violence in sport.

The second round table on sport, tolerance and fair play had been held in Lisbon on 20 November 1998. The event had been marked by the presence of the "national ambassadors", whom 25 countries had designated to date, and had permitted pooling of experience of practical initiatives.

The final statement adopted by participants in the round table is to be found in document CDDS (98) 58, and the report on the proceedings in CDDS (98) Inf 36.

The Secretariat said that 24 countries had submitted written reports prior to the meeting. Overall, the number of incidents at international matches was unchanged in the majority of countries (Austria, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom). An increase in incidents at domestic matches was reported by the Czech Republic and France (in particular the incidents in Seine-St-Denis). Only Switzerland reported an increase in incidents at both international and domestic matches.

A decrease in the number of incidents was reported by four countries (Belgium, Poland, Romania and Hungary).

Generally speaking, incidents inside stadiums seemed to be under control, but violence was continuing to spread outside the stadiums, in particular to inner-city areas. It was apparent from the reports submitted that incidents at amateur matches were on the increase.

New legislative or administrative measures were mentioned by a number of countries (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom).

Other measures referred to by countries answering the questionnaire were fair-play campaigns (Austria, Azerbaijan, France, Spain); a campaign against alcohol consumption (the Czech Republic); training of stewards (Belgium, Cyprus, Ireland, Poland); measures to prevent acts of racism, racist chanting, and so on (Finland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom); and a training course for primary school teachers on the social value of sport (Spain).

As to the question on removal of fences - a special addition to the questionnaire this year - paragraph 6 of Recommendation No. 2/99 on the removal of fences in stadiums gave a brief analysis of the replies (see Appendix 5).

The full texts of the national reports submitted in writing were to be found in document T-RV (99) 2 and Addendums 1 and 2 to that document.

National reports were then presented orally for each of the countries represented at the meeting.

The Chair pointed out that the draft recommendation on stewarding, which appeared in document T-RV (99) 1 rev., had already been examined on a number of occasions by the working group set up on the subject. He thanked Mr John de Quidt (United Kingdom), who had led the drafting group, and all the other members of that group (Belgium, France and the Netherlands).

Mr De Quidt said that there were cultural, legal and other differences between the countries of Europe. The draft recommendation therefore did not go into technical details, but merely set forth the basic principles of stewarding. Stewarding made sense only as part of a series of measures. He asked the committee to approve the document.

The Secretariat reminded participants that monitoring of member States' honouring of their commitments was a permanent exercise. In the area of sport, the monitoring project related to application of the three principal texts: the T-RV Convention, the Anti-Doping Convention and the European Sports Charter. The latter was a Committee of Ministers recommendation.

The aim was not to draw up a kind of league table, but to improve implementation of the texts in question. Another objective was to assess the provisions of a Convention in the light of the results of a number of visits. With regard to the T-RV, the first visit, to Spain, had gone very well. In its report the Examining Group had highlighted the country's strengths in applying the Convention and recommended a number of improvements.

A second visit would be made in October, this time to Portugal. The working group on compliance with commitments had suggested that the members of the examining team should include the Chair and two Vice-Chairs of the Standing Committee and Mr John de Quidt.

The working group on compliance with commitments was considering adding a new element to the project, focusing on advice and assistance to countries in need of these. In the more distant future the project might be incorporated into the Sprint programme. The report of the 3rd meeting of the working group on compliance with commitments was to be found in document CDDS (99) 30.

The Chair informed participants that the prize jury had met on 25 and 26 February in Rome. He thanked the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) for organising the 4th edition of the prize.

The Secretariat presented the results of the 1998 edition. This 4th edition had received 32 entries, compared with 55 for the previous edition. The jury had decided to award prizes to seven of the 32 projects, all categories taken together. The winners included three Italian projects, two Spanish ones and two Swedish ones.

It was absolutely essential that the prize be better publicised. A special issue of the CONI journal "Spaziosport" had been devoted to the rules and results of the latest edition. This journal had been distributed to participants at the meeting. The prize-winning projects were also on display in the meeting room.

Mr Mariano Ravazzolo (Italy) thought that the fact that the International Union of Architects was no longer on the jury had probably had an effect on publicity. For the next edition, CONI was proposing a number of changes in the prize's content. It envisaged eliminating the completed projects category. The aim was to focus on giving young architects a greater chance. CONI's proposals for the 5th edition of the prize in the year 2000 were set out in document T-RV (99) Inf 6. These were based on suggestions made by the jury itself.

The Secretariat informed participants that a European conference on the social dimension of football would be held at the Council of Europe on 22 and 23 November. The initiative had come from the British Council in Paris. Since the conference had a number of points in common with the work of the Standing Committee and the CDDS, the latter had agreed to be associated with its organisation. On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Council of Europe, the Committee of Ministers had moreover recently issued a recommendation on the role of sport in furthering social cohesion.

The primary aim of the conference was to strengthen perception of football as a festive activity and to reduce violence. The Council of Europe was mainly providing the British Council with logistical support in organising the conference.

A number of the persons named in the provisional programme, which had been distributed to participants, had already confirmed that they would participate in the conference (including Marie-Georges Buffet, French Minister for Youth and Sport; David Mellor, the former UK minister; and Mr Patrick Braouezec, MP and mayor of Saint-Denis en France).

Concerning the meeting of the ad hoc working group on Euro 2000, see item 5.2.

Mr Eliezer M. Sandberg (Israel) thanked the Standing Committee for inviting him to the meeting. He said that there were no serious incidents at sports events in Israel. Promoting tolerance nevertheless remained a priority. To that end, an Israeli fair-play charter and a fair-play prize had been introduced. Managing violence did not suffice; educational measures were also needed, in particular in respect of young people.

1. Opening of the meeting by the Chair, Mr Juan Ramon Beorlegui Ibars

2. Adoption of the agenda (T-RV (99) 3)

3. State of Signatures and Ratifications

4. Report of the 18th Meeting (T-RV (98) 11 Rev)

5. Obligations of Parties concerning Euro 2000

5.1 Evaluation of the World Cup ’98 (T-RV (98) 16 - Report of the Evaluation meeting)

5.2 Preparations for Euro 2000 (Belgium and Netherlands, UEFA)  (T-RV (99) Inf 3 - document of the delegations of Belgium and Netherlands on the preparations of the EURO 2000)

5.3 The ticketing system (T-RV (99) Inf 4 – UEFA Ticketing regulations of the EURO 2000)

5.4 The removal of perimeter fences (T-RV (99) 5 - Document prepared by the Secretariat)

5.5 Exchange of information (T-RV (99) Inf 1 Rev. - List of national correspondents)

(T-RV (99) 4 – Draft Recommendation on the identification and treatment of offenders and the exchange of intelligence during the EURO 2000)

5.6 Identification and treatment of offenders (T-RV (99) Inf 2 - Spanish legal study on banning access to stadiums)

(T-RV (99) Inf 5 – Legislative measures in England and Wales to ban convicted football hooligans from attending domestic and international matches)

6. Recent events of interest to the Committee

6.1 Committee of Ministers

(Recommendation No R (99) 11 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the prohibition of free fighting contests, such as cage fighting,

Recommendation No R (99) 10 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the granting of visas to sportsmen and sportswomen)

6.2 Parliamentary Assembly

- Proposed recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly on hooliganism in football (Doc 8279)

- Preparation of a report on hooliganism by the Sub-commission on Youth and Sport

6.3. Committee for the Development of Sport (CDDS)

(CDDS (99) 18 - Abridged report of the meeting and list of decisions)

6.4 Second Round Table on sport, tolerance and fair play

(CDDS (98) 58 - Final statement, CDDS (98) Inf 36 - Proceedings)

7. Review and monitoring of the Convention

7.1 National Reports (T-RV (99) 2)

7.2 Draft recommendation on stewarding (T-RV (99) 1 rév)

7.3 Project on compliance with commitments: preparation of the visit to Portugal (CDDS (99) 30 - Report of the 3^rd meeting of the Working group on Commitments)

8. European Prize for sports facilities

Results of 1998 Edition

Preparation of the 2000 Edition: proposals (T-RV (99) Inf 6)

9. European Conference on the social dimension of football

(Provisional programme of the Conference)

10. Dates of the 20th meeting of the Standing Committee and Ad hoc working group for Euro 2000

11. Other business

12. Close of the meeting

Dr Gernot WAINIG, Österreichische Bundes-Sportorganisation (BSO), A-WIEN

Mr Peter FILIPSKY, Bundespolizeidirektion Wien, A-WIEN

M. le Colonel Herman BLIKI, Commandant Général de la Gendarmerie, B-BRUXELLES

M. le Colonel Jack van PEER, Colonel de la Gendarmerie, B-ANVERS

M. Vincent RAMELOT, Conseiller adjoint, Ministère de l’Intérieur, Direction Générale de la Police Générale du Royaume, B-BRUXELLES

M. Roger DE BREE (à titre d'observateur), Conseiller sécurité de l’Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football-Association, B-BRUXELLES

Mr Ivan BABIC, Head of the Department, Ministry of the Interior, HR-ZAGREB

Mr Ivan POKAS, Officier au Ministère de l'Intérieur, HR-ZAGREB

Mr Panicos EURIPIDES, Officier in charge of Sports, Cyprus Sport Organisation, CY-NICOSIA

Mr Panicos NEOPHYTOU, Member of the Board of Directors of the Cyprus Sport Organisation, CY-NICOSIA

Mr Radim BURES, Deputy Director, Department of Crime Prevention, Ministry of Interior, CR-PRAHA

Mr Jiri TREPES, Police Presidium of the Czech Republic, Secretary of Vice-President, CR-PRAGUE

Mr Paul Lundbæk ANDERSEN, Special Advisor in Legal Matters, The National Commissioner of the Danish Police, DK-KØBENHAVN

Mr Ari-Pekka CALIN, Chief Superintendent, Ministry of the Interior, Police Department, FIN-HELSINKI

Mr. Seppo PAAVOLA, Senior Inspector, Ministry of Education, Department for Sport and Youth Affairs, FIN-HELSINKI

Ms Mirja VIRTALA, Cultural Secretary, Ministry of Education, FIN- 00171 HELSINKI

M. Gilbert LARRIEU, Inspecteur de la Jeunesse, des Sports et des Loisirs, Chargé de mission auprès du Directeur des Sports, Ministère de la Jeunesse et des Sports, F-PARIS

Mr Ernest JACKY, Directeur de la Ligue d'Alsace de Football, F-STRASBOURG

Ms Vera MARCELOU-DAMOFLI, Journaliste, Member D.E.C.A.V., GR-ATHENS

Mr George J. MICHALAS, Senior Architect, Ministry of Culture, General Secretariat of Sports and D.E.C.A.V., GR-ATHENS

Mr Gábor SEPRÉNYI, Advisor, Ministry of Youth and Sports, H-BUDAPEST

Dr Roberto RAPACCINI, Ministero dell’Interno, Vice Questore Aggiunto Polizia di Stato, I-ROMA

M. Mariano RAVAZZOLO, Dirigente Superiore, Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano, I-ROMA

Mme Domenica TURI, Funzionario, Servizio Affari Generali, CONI, I-ROMA

Dr Eugenio DE FEO, Vice Capo Ufficio e Delegato, Fédération de Football pour la sécurité chez UEFA, I-ROMA

Mme Sabrina FILACCHIONE, Interprète

M. Guy COLAS, Conseiller de Direction 1ère classe, Ministère de l’Education Physique et des Sports, L-LUXEMBOURG

Mr. Henk MANNEN, Project Director EC2000, Ministry Health, Welfare & Sport, NL-EJ THE HAGUE

Mr. Nico ROP, Police Department, Ministry of the Interior, NL-EA THE HAGUE

Mr. Theo BREKELMANS, Assistant Chief Constable, Project Coordinator Police EURO 2000, NL-GA UTRECHT

Mr. Henk GROENEVELT, Superintendent, Central Information Unit Football Vandalism, NL-RH UTRECHT

Mrs. Anneke BOONSTRA, Steward & Security Officer, Royal Netherlands Soccer Association (KNVB), NL-AM ZEIST

Mr Fries HEINIS, Security Manager EURO 2000 Foundation, NL- 3007 AS ROTTERDAM

Mr Odd-Roar THORSEN, Assistant Director General, Royal Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Department of Sports Policy, N- OSLO

Mr Tom FODSTAD, The Football Association of Norway, N-OSLO

Dr Jozef SZEWCZYK, State Office for Sports and Tourism, PL-WARSAW

Mr Miroslaw ORZECHOWSKI, State Office for Sports and Tourism, PL-WARSAW

Mr Vasco LYNCE DE FARIA, Presidente, Instituto Nacional do Desporto, P-LISBON

M. Alexandru PARASCHIVESCU, Inspecteur au Ministère de la Jeunesse et des Sports, R-BUCAREST

Mr Nikolai GROUSHIN, Deputy Chief, International Department, The State Committee of the Russian Federation for Physical Culture and Tourism, RUS-MOSCOW

Dr Samuel ROŠKO, Head of top-level sport division, Ministry of Education of Slovakia, BRATISLAVA

M. Juan Ramon BEORLEGUI, Subdirector General de Control Financiero de Federaciones y Entitades Deportivas, Consejo Superior de Deportes, E-MADRID

Herrn Oberstlt Dr Marcel BEBIE, Chef Einsatz und Plannung, Stadtpolizei Zürich, CH-ZURICH

Mr Alan BROWN, Home Office, Operational Police Policy Directorate, GB- LONDON

Mr John de QUIDT, Chief Executive, Football Licensing Authority, GB- LONDON

Mr Andrew CAMERON, Assistant Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police, GB- GLASGOW

Mr Grant ALEXANDER, Police Officer, Inspector Strathclyde Police, GB- GLASGOW

LMR Dr. h.c. Walfried KÖNIG, Ministerium für Arbeit, Soziales und Stadtentwicklung, Kultur und Sport des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, D-DÜSSELDORF

Mr Willian DONOGHUE, Chief Superintendent, An Carda Siochana, Crime & Security Branch, IRL - DUBLIN

Mr Mindaugas LUKOŠIUS, Director of the Programme of Games, Lithuanian State Department of Physical Education and Sports, LTV-VILNIUS

M. Gilbert TALON, Inspecteur principal à la Division de Police urbaine de la Direction de la Sûreté publique, MC-MONACO

Mr Eliezer M. SANDBERG, Deputy Minister of Education, Culture and Sport, JERUSALEM

Dr Yehoshua DEKEL, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport, JERUSALEM

Mr Ernest WALKER, Chairman of the UEFA Stadia Committee, CH-NYON

Mr Markus STUDER, Deputy General Secretary of UEFA, CH-NYON

M. Bernard KIRSCH, Directeur du centre

M. Martin SIMON, Technicien du SIS

BULGARIA / BULGARIE

HOLY SEE / SAINT-SIEGE

BRITISH COUNCIL

FIFA

Sports Division / Division du Sport, Directorate of Education, Culture and Sport / Direction de l'Enseignement, de la Culture et du Sport, F-STRASBOURG

Mr George WALKER, Head of the Sports Division 

Mr Ivar BERG-SORENSEN, Principal Administrator

Mrs Diane MURRAY, Administrator

Mr Mesut ÖZYAVUZ, Administrator

Ms Odile LAUGEL, Principal Administrative Assistant

Miss Suzanne LITTLE, Secretary

Mlle Dominique HUBER, Secretary

Mlle Diane PENEAU, Secretary

(*) Traité ouvert à la signature des Etats membres et des autres Etats parties à la Convention culturelle européenne et à l'adhésion des autres Etats non membres et de la CEE

° "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" / "l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine"

(1) Signature without reservation as to ratification / Signature sans réserve de ratification.

The Standing Committee of the European Convention on Spectator Violence and Misbehaviour at Sports Events and in Particular at Football Matches (T-RV),

Having regard to the need to ensure the safety of spectators and the creation of an environment which discourages violence and misbehaviour;

Recognising that the great majority of spectators do not misbehave;

Considering that the resources of the police should be employed most effectively to maintain public order, prevent and detect crime and arrest lawbreakers;

Seeing a need for stewards to welcome and care for spectators and ensure their safety and well-being as foreseen in Article 3.2 of the convention;

Considering that these stewards should be properly selected, trained, equipped and directed;

Recognising the value of stewards in enabling the stadium management or the organisers of the match to identify and exercise their responsibilities for enforcing the regulations of the stadium by the most appropriate means;

Having regard to the increase in matches at European level, the greater ease of travel and the importance of treating all spectators in a suitable and consistent manner;

Recognising the potential safety benefits of collaboration between stewards from different parties to the convention with compatible stewarding systems;

Considering that this could best be achieved by introducing common minimum standards of recruitment, selection, training and assessment;

Having identified certain principles which are valid in all states party to the convention, notwithstanding their different history, culture and legal systems;

Having regard to the study on stewarding in sport conducted by the Clearing House (T-RV (97) Inf 1);

Recommends to governments of parties to the European Convention on Spectator Violence and Misbehaviour at Sports Events and in particular at Football Matches that they encourage clubs, stadium owners and/or other appropriate bodies in football and other sports to develop a system of stewarding at sporting events with large attendances, based upon the following principles:

1. Stewards should be provided by whoever is responsible for the safety of spectators at the match; this may be either the management of the stadium or the organiser of the event.

2. The nature, role and functions of stewards should be clearly defined; these functions, which should be distinct from, but complement those of the police, should include:

a. searching the stadium before, during and after the match as necessary;

b. welcoming, directing and caring for all spectators, whatever their age, race, sex, disability or the team they support;

c. responding to any complaints from spectators;

d. informing spectators of the arrangements and facilities at the stadium and of any safety requirements laid down by the organisers or the emergency services;

e. assisting in the safe operation of the stadium, in particular supervising and ensuring the safe entry and exit of spectators;

f. enforcing the regulations of the stadium;

g. keeping spectators out of those parts of the stadium to which the public does not have access;

h. observing all areas of potential danger and preventing overcrowding;

i. responding to incidents and emergencies and taking the necessary action to deal with them;

j. assisting the police or emergency services as required.

3. Recruitment procedures should ensure that all stewards are fit and active and can demonstrate that they have the necessary good character, temperament and ability to perform their duties.

4. Thorough training should be provided to all stewards, leading ultimately to the issue of an appropriate certificate. This training should be both theoretical and practical, and cover, inter alia:

a. the legal status, responsibilities and duties of stewards;

b. the requirements in force at the stadium;

c. the organisation and management of safety at the stadium;

d. the principles of crowd management, including how to monitor spectators and to respond to hazards;

e. how to deal with unsafe or unacceptable behaviour;

f. taking care of spectators;

g. the configuration of the stadium, in particular the entrance and exit routes and the location of the alarm and communications systems;

h. what action to take in the event of a spectator being injured;

i. what action to take in the event of a fire or other emergency;

j. evacuation of the stadium.

5. A system for the ongoing assessment of each steward should be maintained, including records of his or her:

a. qualifications or skills;

b. suitability and fitness for the task;

c. attendance at matches and duties performed;

d. standard of performance;

e. training received and further training needs.

6. All stewards should be required to comply with a code of conduct as a condition of their employment. This code should include provisions that all stewards should, inter alia:

a. be polite, courteous and helpful to all spectators at all times, without discrimination;

b. be suitably dressed with no display of team colours;

c. concentrate on their duties at all times and refrain from watching the match or celebrating a goal;

d. never work under the influence of alcohol, drugs or medicines which may affect their behaviour.

7. All stewards should be clearly identifiable. This entails the wearing of suitable clothing so that they may be quickly and easily recognised by spectators, by the stadium management, the police and other authorities.

8. Procedures should be established for determining the minimum number and location of stewards, including supervisory stewards, to be deployed at each match and for ensuring that the stewards are so deployed.

9. Arrangements should be put in place for the effective use of stewards, in particular through:

a. the establishment of a clear hierarchical command and safety management structure with appropriate means of communication;

b. detailed briefing and debriefing before and after each match;

c. the issue to all stewards of a check list and/or handbook summarising their duties;

d. refresher training at periodic intervals.

10. By agreement between the two clubs or countries concerned, suitably qualified stewards from the visiting club or country should be invited by the organisers to accompany the visiting supporters so as to assist the local stewards to provide for their safety, welcome and care.

1. The tragic events of the 1980s in football stadiums led European countries to take practical steps to prevent and control spectator violence and misbehaviour at football matches. Fences and other barriers were installed in football stadiums to separate rival teams' supporters in the stands and/or prevent spectators from invading the pitch.

2. These fences and barriers created a cage-like environment in Europe's stadiums. Being unsightly and having negative connotations, they are not conducive to the creation of a harmonious and festive spirit at football matches. Indeed, they heighten the tension and the feeling of alienation among spectators. Furthermore, fences can be a safety hazard, particularly when crowds panic. Fences around pitches, for example, hinder evacuation in an emergency.

3. Since the period when fences were installed, stadium design and crowd control techniques have progressed. Renovation work on many football grounds has considerably improved spectator facilities, for example in terms of refreshments, ladies' lavatories, etc, making stadiums pleasanter and more attractive places for the whole family. Another major improvement in spectator safety has been the introduction of numbered seating-only arrangements. In addition to these innovations, modern information and communication technologies and high-powered video surveillance systems have been installed, the ticket sales system has been improved, a better method of controlling access to the stadiums developed, appropriate legislation with effective sanctions introduced and better European police co-operation instigated. Enhanced stewarding techniques have also improved conditions for the reception of spectators and helped to create an environment that discourages violence. Lastly, police forces are now more experienced in crowd control.

4. The last European championship (Euro 96) and the 1998 World Cup championship in France were held mainly in stadiums with no fences. The removal of fences from most grounds has not led to any increase in spectator violence, except for a few minor incidents. This state of affairs prompted the Standing Committee to reconsider its policy in this matter. On the basis of the experience of Euro 96, it adopted a statement on fences and barriers (appended) at its 17th meeting, on 5 and 6 June 1997.

5. The same applies to the 1998 World Cup in France where the removal of fences in most stadiums had no adverse effect on safety, except in a few isolated incidences.

In its evaluation report on the 1998 World Cup, FIFA concluded:

"The removal of perimeter fences in most of the stadia did not exacerbate the safety situation at all, except in a very few isolated cases. The crowd fully respected the fact that the field of play is sacred. This should further encourage FIFA and the national associations to continue to dismantle perimeter fences, even for league matches. Of course the undersigned is perfectly aware that World Cup spectators are quite different from those who attend normal first division matches in most European countries." (cf T-RV (98) 16).

6. In the national reports to be presented to the Standing Committee at its 19th meeting, one of the questions concerns fencing. A total of 20 delegations supplied information on the situation and trends in their countries concerning the removal of fences. In 5 of these countries there are no fences in football grounds, while another 2 have fencing in only a third of their stadiums. Nine countries are gradually removing fences or replacing them with lower, more attractive barriers or transparent Plexiglas. Only 4 countries are in favour of keeping fences. This means that a large majority of European countries have already set about removing fences from their stadiums.

7. It is interesting to note that countries, like England and France, that recently staged major international championships (Euro 96 and the 1998 World Cup) pioneered the move to dismantle fences in stadiums in the wake of this experience. The international championships they hosted provided these countries with an incentive to improve their systems of safety, crowd control, stadium design, stewarding (see Recommendation No. 1/99 on stewarding) and so on. Their examples show that the removal of fences should be one of the measures taken to improve safety arrangements as well as conditions for the reception of spectators in football stadiums.

8. The removal of fences also seems to go hand in hand with the development of a more festive, family-friendly atmosphere. Removing physical barriers undoubtedly helps to get rid of mental barriers: "good treatment breeds good behaviour".

Adopted by the Standing Committee at its 17^th meeting on 5-6 June 1997 in Strasbourg