Bulgarian legislation provides for several different types of hooliganism depending a8> on the degree of public danger of hooliganism manifestation and on the circumstances under which it was committed.
Thus, there are three types of hooliganism:
- petty hooliganism, which we will examine in detail in today’s article;
- “serious” hooliganism, i.e. hooliganism that is considered a crime and is punishable under the Bulgarian Penal Code;
- sports hooliganism, i.e. anti-social behavior that takes place in a sports facility, sports hall, or sports area before, during, immediately after, or on the way to or from a sporting event.
What is “petty hooliganism” and what are the means of defense when charges are brought?
This concept is defined in the law, according to which:
Petty hooliganism is indecent behavior expressed through the use of profanity, swearing, or other indecent expressions in a public place in front of a large number of people, through offensive behavior and conduct toward citizens, authorities, or the public, or through quarreling, fighting, or other similar actions that disturb public order and peace, but due to its lower degree of public danger, it does not constitute a crime.
As can be seen from this legal definition, this is an administrative offense, i.e., in this case, no sentence is imposed for hooliganism, as this act does not constitute a crime.
The Criminal Code and the Law on Administrative Offenses and Penalties (LAOP) do not apply to this type of anti-social behavior. In practice, the Law on the Ministry of Internal Affairs (LMA) is applied, and often, for acts constituting petty hooliganism, unlawful preliminary police detentions for up to 24 hours are carried out.
Why is police detention in a subsequent administrative penalty case for petty hooliganism unlawful?
The answer to this question lies in the legal provisions governing police detention in general. According to the law, police authorities may detain a person for up to 24 hours in seven exhaustively listed cases:
1. when there is evidence that he has committed a crime;
2. when the person, after being duly warned, deliberately obstructs a police officer in the performance of his or her official duties;
3. when the person exhibits severe mental disorders and their behavior disrupts public order or exposes their life or the lives of others to obvious danger;
4. if it is impossible to establish his identity by the means provided for by law;
5. when the person has evaded serving a prison sentence or has absconded from the places where he or she was detained as a defendant in compliance with an order of a judicial authority;
6. when the person has been declared wanted for arrest, as well as at the request of another country in connection with his extradition or in execution of a European arrest warrant;
7. in other cases specified by law.
As mentioned above, committing petty hooliganism does not constitute a crime, nor does it fall within the scope of any of the other hypotheses. This is because even in the latter case, namely “in other cases specified by law,” lawful detention for an act constituting petty hooliganism prior to the drawing up of the statement of offence is not possible, as the Decree on Combating Petty Hooliganism does not provide for such a possibility. This would mean that any detention for anti-social behavior that can be classified as petty hooliganism, any detention prior to the imposition of a penalty, is unlawful and subject to revocation and monetary compensation.
The law provides for two types of penalties: detention for up to 15 days in a facility of the Ministry of the Interior and a fine of between BGN 100 and BGN 500. In the event of a repeat offense, community service is also imposed.
Procedure for imposing punishment for petty hooliganism
As mentioned above, the acts in question constitute an administrative offense, and a report is drawn up when they are detected. The competent authorities for this are those of the Ministry of the Interior, as well as the mayors and deputy mayors, who must describe the case in detail, noting the name and address of the offender, as well as the witnesses who were present at the time of the offense.
The lack of a detailed description of the violation is an absolute ground for not imposing a penalty, as this violates the accused person’s right to defense.
Immediately, but no later than 24 hours, the head of the relevant structural unit of the Ministry of the Interior is obliged to perform one of the following three actions:
- yes submit the case file to the court, when it concerns an adult offender;
- yes send it for consideration by the relevant commission for combating against anti-social behavior of minors and juveniles, if the offender is underage and it is determined that on him/her can be influenced effectively by imposing a educational measure, or
- yes terminate the proceedings, when it finds that there are no grounds for imposing an administrative penalty or educational measure.
It is precisely at this moment that the law provides for the possibility of detaining a person who is believed to have committed an anti-social act constituting an administrative offense, i.e., only after the act establishing this has been issued, and not before, as is usually the case in practice. The law also provides an additional condition for the legality of such detention, namely that it must not be possible for the offender to be brought before a judge immediately. This hypothesis applies in cases where acts have been committed late at night outside the working hours of the judicial system.
When the case file is submitted to the court, the judge shall rule immediately and single-handedly in an open hearing with summons of the offender, within the framework of which imposes a penalty or acquits the person.
Similarly, when the case file is submitted for consideration by the local commission for combating antisocial behavior by minors, it shall rule on whether to impose a corrective measure or to refuse to impose such a measure.
In all cases, a person accused of petty hooliganism, whether an adult, a minor, or a juvenile, has the right to legal representation.
Cases from the practice of the law firm in cases of minor hooliganism
The first case of petty hooliganism concerns a conflict that arose due to a minor traffic accident between Simeon’s and Milena’s cars*.
There is a traffic jam at the entrance to a large regional city caused by roadworks. Milena is driving one of the cars caught in this traffic jam. She notices that directly in front of her is another car with a trailer attached, driven by Simeon, who is trying to overtake the line of cars by entering the opposite lane. To avoid a head-on collision, she has to move as far to the right as possible, but since there is not enough space, the trailer hits her car as it passes. The impact is very light and there is no serious damage to the cars, except for a scratch on the paintwork of Milena’s car.
However, due to lack of space, Simeon is unable to pass, which angers him to such an extent that he gets out of his car and starts banging on Milena’s car, trying to forcefully remove her rear license plate, using extremely rude, offensive, and vulgar language toward her.
With the assistance of the law firm, Milena files a report for petty hooliganism and initiates legal proceedings for defamation.
The second case of petty hooliganism concerns a conflict between neighbors arising from abandoned construction waste in the common areas of a condominium.
After Svetoslava* repeatedly asked Petya to take out the trash from the common areas, after consuming a considerable amount of alcohol, Svetoslava began banging on the front door of Petya’s apartment, and the two exchanged obscene gestures, threats, and insults. Petya called 112, and the police officers who arrived at the scene detained Svetoslava for up to 24 hours. With the assistance of the law firm, her detention order was revoked as unlawful, and she was acquitted of the charge of petty hooliganism.
The third case of petty hooliganism concerns a drunken rampage and the use of indecent language and gestures towards police officers. Tsvetelina* decided to go to the store to buy alcohol. Due to the fact that she was visibly intoxicated, Nikola refused to sell her the requested goods, which provoked strong aggression in her. She began to throw goods around the store and shout insults and offensive words at him. He decided that instead of trying to calm the drunk Tsvetelina down, it would be better to call the police. When the police officers arrived and tried to remove her from the store, she became even more violent and began to insult them as well. As a result of her actions, she was detained for 24 hours for deliberately obstructing the officers in the performance of their duties.
The very next day, Tsvetelina was brought before a judge and fined 100 leva.
* In order to preserve attorney-client privilege, names have been changed.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Silvia Petkova Sole Proprietorship Law Firm provides qualified legal assistance from lawyers specializing in administrative penalty cases with extensive experience in handling charges of petty hooliganism.
Contact:
Working hours: Monday to Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM
Address: Sofia, 2 Tri Ushi Str., 3rd floor
Tel. 0885 47 77 57
Email: office@petkovalegal.com
or
Phone consultations and in-office consultations are conducted by appointment only.
The firm’s specialists provide legal assistance throughout the country.
