Talk:Stadium ban decision

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 21 September 2024 by reviewer Johannes Maximilian (talk · contribs).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football: Germany Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the German football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Minimal COI

While insignificant, I have been taught by one of the people cited in the past, but I wouldn’t bet on him knowing my name. FortunateSons (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the German Federal Constitutional Court made a ruling on the permissibility of a nationwide 2-year stadium ban almost a decade after its end?

Source: https://www.lto.de/recht/nachrichten/n/bverfg-1bvr308009-bundesweite-stadionverbote-mittelbare-drittwirkung-grundrechte-hausrecht-dfb Das Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) hat die Verfassungsbeschwerde eines mit einem bundesweiten Stadionverbot belegten Fußballfans als unbegründet zurückgewiesen (Beschl. v. 11.04.2018, Az. 1 BvR 3080/09). Die Verbote dürften aber mit Blick auf das Gleichheitsgebot nicht willkürlich festgesetzt werden und müssten auf einem sachlichen Grund beruhen, entschied der Erste Senat in einem am Freitag veröffentlichten Beschluss. Für ein Stadionverbot reiche allerdings schon die Sorge, dass von einer Person die Gefahr künftiger Störungen ausgehe. Nach einem Auswärtsspiel des FC Bayern München gegen den MSV Duisburg im Jahr 2006 kam es außerhalb des Stadions zu Auseinandersetzungen zwischen den Fangruppen. Die Polizei nahm daraufhin 50 Personen in Gewahrsam, unter ihnen der damals 16-jährige Beschwerdeführer. Gegen ihn wurde dann ein Verfahren wegen Landfriedensbruchs eingeleitet, das später wegen Geringfügigkeit eingestellt wurde. Nach der Einleitung des Ermittlungsverfahrens sprach der MSV Duisburg im Namen des Deutschen Fußballbundes (DFB) ein zweijähriges, bundesweites Stadionverbot gegen den 16-Jährigen aus. Gestützt wurde das Verbot auf die Stadion-Verbotsrichtlinien des DFB. Trotz der späteren Verfahrenseinstellung entschieden der MSV und der DFB ohne Anhörung des zur Münchener Ultra-Szene gehörenden Jugendlichen, das Verbot aufrecht zu erhalten.
https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2018/04/rs20180411_1bvr308009.html (11. April 2018) “Mit Schreiben vom 18. April 2006 sprach die Beklagte daraufhin gegenüber dem Beschwerdeführer ein bundesweites Stadionverbot für die Dauer vom 18. April 2006 bis zum 30. Juni 2008 aus”

ALT1: ... that a ruling on the permissibility of stadium bans by the German Federal Constitutional Court could obligate certain private actors to follow constitutional law? Source: Towfigh, Emanuel V.; Gleixner, Alexander (2022). Smartbook Grundrechte: ein hybrides Lehrbuch mit 67 Lernvideos [Smartbook Fundamental Rights: a hybrid textbook with 67 learning videos]. NomosStudium (in German) (1. Auflage ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos. pp. 57–58. ISBN 978-3-7489-1119-7. “Darüber hinaus beschäftigt sich das BVerfG erstmals mit der Wirkung des allgemeinen Gleichheitssatzes (Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG) im Privatrecht.39 Eine mittelbare Drittwirkung des allgemeinen Gleichheitssatzes ist vor allem mit Blick auf die im Privatrecht geltende Privatautonomie problematisch, die es gerade erlaubt, die Vertragspartner frei auszuwählen und grds. Kontraktionszwang unterbindet - was im Umkehrschluss als Freiheit zu diskriminieren interpretiert werden kann. Das BVerfG stellt daher ausdrücklich fest, dass der allgemeine Gleich-heitssatz kein objektives Verfassungsrecht enthält, wonach Rechtsverhältnisse zwischen Privaten prinzipiell gleichheitsgerecht auszugestalten seien. Auf den konkreten Fall gewendet: Die mit dem Stadionverbot einhergehende Ungleichbehandlung des Fans gegenüber denjenigen, die das Stadion besuchen dürfen, ist nicht schon per se verfassungswidrig. Die Gleichheitsbindung privater Akteure begründet das BVerfG erst in „spezifischen Konstellationen" (§ 3 Rn. 44 f.): Ein allgemeiner Grundsatz, wonach private Vertragsbeziehungen jeweils den Rechtfertigungsanforderungen des Gleichbehandlungsgebots unterlägen, folgt demgegenüber aus Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG auch im Wege der mittelbaren Drittwirkung nicht. [...] Gleichheitsrechtliche Anforderungen für das Verhältnis zwischen Privaten können sich aus Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG jedoch für spezifische Konstellationen erge-ben. Eine solche Konstellation liegt dem hier in Frage stehenden bundesweit gültigen Stadionverbot zugrunde. Maßgeblich für die mittelbare Drittwirkung des Gleichbehandlungsgebots ist dessen Charakter als einseitiger, auf das Hausrecht gestützter Ausschluss von Veranstaltungen, die aufgrund eigener Entscheidung der Veranstalter einem großen Publikum ohne Ansehen der Person geöffnet werden und der für die Betroffenen in erheblichem Umfang über die Teilnahme am gesellschaftlichen Leben entscheidet. Indem ein Privater eine solche Veranstaltung ins Werk setzt, erwächst ihm von Verfassungs wegen auch eine besondere rechtliche Verantwortung. Er darf seine hier aus dem Hausrecht - so wie in anderen Fällen möglicherweise aus einem Monopol oder aus struktureller Überlegenheit - resultierende Entscheidungsmacht nicht dazu nutzen, bestimmte Personen ohne sachlichen Grund von einem solchen Ereignis auszuschließen. Die Fachgerichte haben daher sicherzustellen, dass das Stadionverbot nicht willkürlich erlassen worden ist. Das BVerfG etabliert dabei Hürden aus der verwaltungsrechtlichen Dogmatik:41 Es bedarf eines sachlichen Grundes und einer Anhörung der jeweiligen Betroffenen. Das führt letztlich zu einer „situativ staatsgleichen Grundrechtsbindung privater Akteure".”
Reviewed:
Comment: I’m open to alternative hooks, as the case is somewhat complicated and other aspects may be more interesting to an international audience. Thank you!

Created by FortunateSons (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

FortunateSons (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: @FortunateSons: I think this needs a bit of copyediting:

The Stadionverbots-Entscheidung (Beschl. v. 11.04.2018, Az. 1 BvR 3080/09)[1] (literally: Stadium-Ban-Decision, also known as the Stadionverbots-Beschluss) is a decision by the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the German federal constitutional court, in which a football fan unsuccessfully attempted to have his ban from German stadiums to be found to be unlawful.

Do you mean "a football fan unsuccessfully attempted to have his ban from German stadiums" rescinded or repealed? "To be found to be unlawful" doesn't really work. Viriditas (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps „retroactively declared to be unlawful“? FortunateSons (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The court set a higher standard for banning a fan from all stadiums for alleged misconduct, declaring some applicability of mittelbare Drittwirkung in regards to procedural rights and equality to their treatment of fans.

You will need to very briefly explain mittelbare Drittwirkung. For example you could do it like this: "The court set a higher standard for banning a fan from all stadiums for alleged misconduct, declaring some applicability of mittelbare Drittwirkung, a legal concept unique to European jurisprudence, in regards to procedural rights and equality to their treatment of fans." Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. But not necessarily for the hook, just in the article, right? Do we need a definition in the lead as well? FortunateSons (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't addressed the hooks yet. I'm not convinced the current hooks are that interesting. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the below sources translate mittelbare Drittwirkung as "the doctrine of the indirect horizontal effects of fundamental rights". Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch. I added the translation, I think it’s probably best cited to the primary sources below, right? FortunateSons (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @FortunateSons: I think we really need to focus on clearly describing the topic in English. I'm seeing a few English sources that do just that.[1] So, some questions. Should the English article title be in German or in English, such as "Stadium ban decision"? No strong feelings, but we should see what policy says. Also, what year did the decision take place, 2009? If so, say that in the first sentence. Finally, try to simplify the outcome. I see two English language sources that do just this.[2][3] There are likely more. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRANSLITERATE seems to be dictate that we use the English title, to the best of my understanding. If you agree, I’m happy to move it. Regarding dates: the incident was in 2006, the ban lasted from 2006 to 2008, the decision was in 2018. Which date are you referring to? Thank you for the English sources, I missed those. :)FortunateSons (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons: The date of the final decision should appear in the lead, as should a brief description of the incident and ban dates. If you feel comfortable moving the page, then feel free to do so. Viriditas (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will move the page. The date for the decision is already in the lead (as it is part of how the cases are cited, with DD/MM/YYYY), and I will add the year for the incident and ban (2006), or do we need the specific dates? In scientific secondary sources, they generally don’t go in depth beyond the year, if I remember correctly. FortunateSons (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do it however you want, but I don't see any dates in the lead in plain text, just in the case format, which isn't explicit to the general reader. Sometimes a bit of redundancy helps. Also, more dates and explanation might be needed per the above. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added the years, and some additional context to the lead. Not sure on grammar/style, what do you think? FortunateSons (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You nailed it! It's a huge improvement. Now, what are we going to do about the hooks? Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I’m really not sure about the hooks. The link between football and social media or alternatively the duration of the ban compared to the duration of the legal process might be most interesting to someone with no connection to the subject, but I could be missing the forest for the trees here? FortunateSons (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons: Why do you have Bundesverfassungsgericht in italics, but not Bundesgerichtshof? Same thing with Drittwirkung, which appears as Drittwirkung later on in the articlce. Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting: - n

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article was new and long enough on 21 September when it was moved from draft to mainspace. I don't like the current hooks, partly because of the way they are written, and partly because I don't find them interesting per se, but they might be more interesting if they were rewritten. The nominator has shown that they acknowledge there are more interesting hooks to be had, particularly in terms of the legal ramifications of the decision on social media companies. I would encourage the nominator to work the kinks out and add more hooks to choose from to this nomination, or failing that, rewrite the current ones. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]