In its August 12 meeting, the Constitutional Court examined a number of challenges concerning Article 287, par. 1 of the Penal Code regarding hooliganism, IPN reports.

In accordance with the specific features of the challenges, the Court examined the expressions “intentional actions that grossly violate public order” and “actions that by their content differ by cynicism or special impudence”. The key moment is that depending on interpretation, the act of hooliganism can be classed as contravention and also as criminal offense.

In a press briefing after the meeting, CC president Domnica Manole explained that the difference between the contravention of hooliganism and the criminal offense of hooliganism resides in the presence or absence of adjacent actions, such as use of violence against persons, threatening of persons with use of violence and putting up of violent resistance to representatives of authorities that fight acts of hooliganism.

The Court held that in “intentional actions that grossly violate public order”, only the term “grossly” generates problems as it does not clearly specify the method and criteria for assessing the intensity of public order violation. It uselessly makes the formulation of the law more complex, creating impediments to the interpretation of the article by courts of law.

To explain the formulation “actions that by their content differ by cynicism or special impudence”, the Court analyzed the interpretation of the Supreme Court of Justice, which said that “special cynicism” is explained as “insistent and demonstrative violation of moral rules” or “impolite behavior in the presence of other persons”, but didn’t clarify the discussed norm and didn’t introduce an objective benchmark that would ensure predictability in the application of his norm by the investigation bodies or courts.

Domnica Manole explained that in practice, cynicism is interpreted primarily depending on personal convictions or the subjective perceptions of the persons who apply the criminal law. Those who apply the norm are in a state of juridical uncertainty and the legal provisions therefore do not meet the quality standard of the criminal law.

As a result, the Constitutional Court decided that the notions “grossly” and “cynicism or” from Article 287, par. 1 of the Penal Code run counter to the supreme law.