Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Football-Related Disorder in the Netherlands

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Legal Responses to Football Hooliganism in Europe

Part of the book series: ASSER International Sports Law Series ((ASSER))

  • 895 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, we look at the historical background of football-related disorder in the Netherlands, and current legal developments regarding the policing of football matches. The situation regarding intelligence gathering on football-related disorder and the ‘Hooligans in Beeld’ project are discussed. The new Football Law and selected case-law on the Football Law are analysed. Finally, the author makes recommendations for the development of legal responses to football-related disorder in the Netherlands.

At the time of writing this chapter, Peter Coenen (deceased) was Assistant Professor of Law at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. Any further correspondence related to this chapter could be addressed to G. Pearson at the address specified below.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    There seems to be a significant degree of violence at and around amateur football matches in the Netherlands. The most notable recent incident was where a linesman was killed in a fight following a youth match. However, the scope of this chapter is limited to professional football matches.

  2. 2.

    See for example Siekmann 1982 and Van der Brug 1994.

  3. 3.

    Van der Brug 1994, p. 169.

  4. 4.

    Ibid., p. 171.

  5. 5.

    Spaaij 2007, p. 324.

  6. 6.

    Ibid., p. 322. See also Spaaij 2006, 2011.

  7. 7.

    The official name of the law is ‘Wet Maatregelen Bestrijding Voetbalvandalisme en Ernstige Overlast’, which translates as ‘Act regarding Measures to Fight Football Hooliganism and Serious Nuisance’. However, the term Voetbal Wet or ‘Football Law’ is generally used to refer to this Act.

  8. 8.

    The Dutch Football Law incorporates elements of the English legislation on football related disorder and anti-social behaviour orders. For a discussion on general problems associated with the legality of such orders and the regulation of risks, see among others Von Hirsch and Simester 2006; Garland 1996; Zedner 2007; Macdonald 2006. For the problems associated with football banning orders, see among others James and Pearson 2006; Pearson 2006; Stott and Pearson 2006, 2007.

  9. 9.

    Spaaij 2007, p. 324.

  10. 10.

    The majority of football supporters are peaceful and come to the stadium to enjoy a football experience. However, there is a small minority intent on disorder which also frequents football matches in the Netherlands. In this chapter, where the term hooligans is used, it is exclusively used to describe persons or groups with a specific intent to commit offences or cause disorder.

  11. 11.

    D. de Hulster, ‘Strafonderzoek naar rellen bij Roda’, Dagblad de Limburger 26 July 2011.

  12. 12.

    Nos.nl (13 March 2007) ‘Weer onrustig in Utrechtse Ondiep’. http://nos.nl/artikel/61116-weer-onrustig-in-utrechtse-ondiep.html. Accessed 2 July 2014 (link no longer active).

  13. 13.

    Ferwerda et al. 2010, p. 62. See also for example Rechtbank Rotterdam, 02-02-2010, BL1682.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., p. 63.

  15. 15.

    Ibid.

  16. 16.

    Ibid.

  17. 17.

    Ibid.

  18. 18.

    For a discussion of the football banning order industry in England and Wales, see Hopkins 2013.

  19. 19.

    Van der Brug 1994, p. 185.

  20. 20.

    C.J. van Netburg, 2005 Voetbalvandalisme. www.civ-voetbal.com/sites/default/files/voetbalvandalisme_tcm44-84975.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2014.

  21. 21.

    For a discussion of the role of NFIP’s in Europe, their impact on the rights of football supporters and their role in the risk- regulation infrastructure, see Tsoukala 2009a and Tsoukala 2009b.

  22. 22.

    See http://www.civ-voetbal.com/.

  23. 23.

    Ibid. n. 20.

  24. 24.

    See http://www.civ-voetbal.com/node/1.

  25. 25.

    Adang and Ferwerda 2007, p. 57.

  26. 26.

    Ibid.

  27. 27.

    Ibid.

  28. 28.

    Zedner 2007, Maguire 2000.

  29. 29.

    The right to privacy is guaranteed in the Netherlands in Article 10 of the Dutch Constitution and by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  30. 30.

    See www.hetccv.nl/binaries/content/assets/ccv/dossiers/uitgaansgeweld/hooligans_in_beeld_procesbeschrijving.pdf, which states that the information collected under certain circumstances can be exchanged with private actors, like football clubs and the local catering branches.

  31. 31.

    As mentioned above (n. 8), the Football Law combines a lot of the elements of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and Football Banning Orders. The Football Law as such has become a catch-all for deviant behaviour in the Netherlands.

  32. 32.

    Tweede Kamer 2008, Memorie van Toelichting, 31467 nr. 3, KST118583, SDU.

  33. 33.

    A proposed change of the Football Law was presented to the Second Chamber of Parliament in March 2014, which would soften this structure element to also enable measures to be introduced to first- time offenders and which would extend the periods for which measures could be imposed.

  34. 34.

    Wet Maatregelen Bestrijding Voetbalvandalisme en Ernstige Overlast 2010, n. 7 above.

  35. 35.

    Tweede Kamer 2008, Memorie van Toelichting, 31467 nr. 3, KST118583, SDU.

  36. 36.

    Ibid.

  37. 37.

    Ibid. See also Spaaij 2006, 2007. For a description of a Dutch group of football supporters, see Kievits 2012.

  38. 38.

    Tweede Kamer 2008, Memorie van Toelichting, 31467 nr. 3, KST118583, SDU.

  39. 39.

    Audit-Team Voetbal Vandalisme 2008.

  40. 40.

    Wet Maatregelen Bestrijding Voetbalvandalisme en Ernstige Overlast 2010, n. 7 above.

  41. 41.

    Ibid. This is an administrative procedure by the mayor, without judicial involvement. So the mayor has to comply with the principles of proper administration, for example the principle of careful information gathering of Article 3:2 General Administrative Law Act. However, the criminal standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) does not apply when imposing such a measure.

  42. 42.

    Bestrijding Voetbalvandalisme en Ernstige Overlast 2010, n. 7 above.

  43. 43.

    Tweede Kamer 2008, Memorie van Toelichting, 31467 nr. 3, KST118583, SDU.

  44. 44.

    Ibid.

  45. 45.

    In contrast to Spaaij’s claims above, n. 10 above.

  46. 46.

    Tweede Kamer 2008, Memorie van Toelichting, 31467 nr. 3, KST118583, SDU.

  47. 47.

    Ibid.

  48. 48.

    Audit-team Voetbal Vandalisme 2008.

  49. 49.

    Ibid.

  50. 50.

    Ibid.

  51. 51.

    See Pearson 2006, James and Pearson 2006 and Stott and Pearson 2007. See also Maguire 2000.

  52. 52.

    Audit-Team Voetbal Vandalisme 2008.

  53. 53.

    Ibid.

  54. 54.

    Ibid.

  55. 55.

    Ibid.

  56. 56.

    Ibid.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    Ibid.

  59. 59.

    Ibid.

  60. 60.

    See also Pro Facto 2012.

  61. 61.

    Inspectie Openbare Orde en Veiligheid 2012.

  62. 62.

    Ibid.

  63. 63.

    Ibid.

  64. 64.

    See also Pro Facto 2012, p. 84.

  65. 65.

    It would be virtually impossible to maintain that measures on the basis of the Football Law have a preventive character, if these measures have a much longer duration. Penalties for football related disorder are imposed by the Courts after a trial, whereas the mayor and the prosecutor have certain additional powers to maintain public order or in anticipation of a criminal trial.

  66. 66.

    Such a dossier for example has to comply with the general principles of administrative law. Examples of such principles are the principle of careful information gathering (Article 3:2 General Administrative Law Act) and the principle of a reasoned decision (Article 3:46 General Administrative Law Act).

  67. 67.

    Inspectie Openbare Orde en Veiligheid 2012.

  68. 68.

    Inspectie Openbare Orde en Veiligheid 2011.

  69. 69.

    Inspectie Openbare Orde en Veiligheid 2012.

  70. 70.

    Ibid.

  71. 71.

    Ibid.

  72. 72.

    Ibid.

  73. 73.

    For a discussion on best policing practices regarding football supporters and the prevention of offences by such first- time offenders, see Stott and Pearson 2007.

  74. 74.

    Tweede Kamer 2008, Memorie van Toelichting, 31467 nr. 3, KST118583, SDU.

  75. 75.

    Inspectie Openbare Orde en Veiligheid 2012.

  76. 76.

    Ibid.

  77. 77.

    Ibid.

  78. 78.

    Ibid.

  79. 79.

    Ibid.

  80. 80.

    Ibid.

  81. 81.

    Ibid.

  82. 82.

    Ibid.

  83. 83.

    Ibid.

  84. 84.

    Ibid.

  85. 85.

    Rechtbank Amsterdam, 18-02-2011, LJN BP5057.

  86. 86.

    LJN BP5057, at para 4.4.

  87. 87.

    LJN BP5057, at para 4.5.

  88. 88.

    LJN BP5057, at para 4.6.

  89. 89.

    LJN BP5057, at para 4.7.

  90. 90.

    LJN BP5057, at para 4.7.

  91. 91.

    LJN BP5057, at para 4.7.

  92. 92.

    The principle of proportionality is contained in Article 3:4(2) of the General Administrative Law Act.

  93. 93.

    LJN BP5057, at para 4.8.

  94. 94.

    Rechtbank Amsterdam, 03-04-2012, LJN BW1140.

  95. 95.

    The principle of subsidiarity is contained in Article 3:3 of the General Administrative Law Act and the principle of proportionality is contained in Article 3:4(2) of the General Administrative Law Act.

  96. 96.

    See Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, App. No. 5100/71; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72, 8 June 1976. For a discussion of the definition of punitive measures under the ECHR, see Trechsel and Summers 2006. For a discussion of this issue with regard to English football banning orders, see Pearson 2006.

References

  • Adang O, Ferwerda H (2007) Hooligans in beeld. Reed Business, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Audit-Team Voetbal Vandalisme (2008) Aanhouding, vervolging en bestraffing van hooligans. Rijksoverheid, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferwerda H, Van Leiden I, Van Ham T (2010) Het nieuwe hooliganisme; geweld ook buiten het voetbalveld. Justitiële verkenningen 36:54–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland D (1996) The limits of the sovereign state strategies of crime control in contemporary society. British journal of criminology 36:445–471

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins M (2013) Ten seasons of the football banning order: Police Officer narratives on the operation of banning orders and the impact on the behaviour of ‘risk supporters’. Policing and Society 24:285–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Inspectie Openbare Orde en Veiligheid (2011) Wet Maatregelen Bestrijding Voetbalvandalisme en Ernstige Overlast. Toepassing in de Praktijk. Inspectie Openbare Orde en Veiligheid, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Inspectie Openbare Orde en Veiligheid (2012) Wet Maatregelen Bestrijding Voetbalvandalisme en Ernstige Overlast. Toepassing in de Praktijk 2012. Inspectie Openbare Orde en Veiligheid, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • James M, Pearson G (2006) Football banning orders: Analysing their use in Court. Journal of Criminal Law 70:509–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Kievits Y (2012) Rotterdam hooligan. Just Publishers, Meppel

    Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald S (2006) A suicidal woman, roaming pigs and a noisy trampolinist: Refining the ASBO’s definition of ‘Anti-Social Behaviour. The Modern Law Review 69:183–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Maguire M (2000) Policing by risks and targets: Some dimensions and implications of intelligence-led crime control. Policing and Society: An International Journal 9:315–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson G (2006) Hybrid law and human rights–banning and behaviour orders in the appeal courts. Liverpool Law Review 27:125–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Pro Facto (2012) Op doel? Evaluatie van de Wet Maatregelen Bestrijding Voetbalvandalisme en Ernstige Overlast. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Siekmann R (1982) Voetbalvandalisme. De Vrieseborch, Haarlem

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaaij R (2006) Understanding Football Hooliganism. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaaij R (2007) Football Hooliganism in the Netherlands: Patterns of Continuity and Change. Soccer and Society 8:316–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaaij R (2011) Understanding Football Hooliganism: A comparison of six Western European football clubs. Vossiuspers, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Stott C, Pearson G (2006) Football banning orders, Proportionality and public order. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 45:241–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Stott C, Pearson G (2007) Football hooliganism: Policing and the war on the English Disease. Pennant Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Trechsel S, Summers SJ (2006) Human rights in criminal proceedings. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukala A (2009a) Football Hooliganism in Europe. Security and Civil Liberties in the Balance. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukala A (2009b) Combating football crowd disorder at the European level: an ongoing institutionalisation of the control of deviance. The Entertainment and Sports Law Journal 7(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Brug HH (1994) Football hooliganism in the Netherlands. In: Giulianotti R et al (eds) Football, violence and social identity. London, Routledge, pp 169–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch A, Simester A (eds) (2006) Incivilities: Regulating offensive behaviour. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedner L (2007) Pre-crime and post-criminology? Theoretical Criminology 11:261–281

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Peter T. M. Coenen

Authors
  1. Peter T. M. Coenen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter T. M. Coenen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Sport Sciences, University of Paris 11, Orsay, France

    Anastassia Tsoukala

  2. Law School, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

    Geoff Pearson

  3. Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Peter T.M. Coenen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Coenen, P.T.M. (2016). Football-Related Disorder in the Netherlands. In: Tsoukala, A., Pearson, G., Coenen, P. (eds) Legal Responses to Football Hooliganism in Europe. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-108-1_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-108-1_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-107-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-108-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation