The steward on duty at the stadium is not in charge of a public service

The stewards who work in stadiums are not public servants. That is why they cannot be held liable for the offence of bribery if, for a monetary consideration, they let in spectators without tickets to watch a football match.

The Court of Cassation, with sentence 23333, upholds the appeal of four stewards, convicted by the Court of Appeal for the crime of bribery in their own right, for having 'favoured' fans, who had been admitted to the stadium despite not having a valid entry ticket. The Supreme Court, after reconstructing the legal framework, recalled that stewards are subjects bound by a private relationship withthe clubs organising sporting events, who are 'not allowed to carry weapons or other offensive objects, nor to exercise public functions, reserved to the state police bodies'. And it is to the latter that stewards must refer in the event of abnormal situations. Their tasks range from the cleaning of the facilities before opening to the public to checking the stability of the anchoring of mobile structures, from guarding the gates to checking tickets, and to complying with the regulations prohibiting the introduction of objects dangerous to public safety into the stadium.

It is within their scope of action to make offenders off limits and to report offences to the state police. An activity - the Supreme Court emphasises - that is entirely complementary and accessory to that of the police, whose powers are limited to simply reporting offences. No coercive or authoritative power, therefore, but material and non-intellectual work, carried out in execution of service orders.

As for the extension of the criminal protection in the case of threatening or offending a public official - used by the Court of Appeal in support of the thesis of the status of public officials - this, which is triggered when stewards are made the target of throwing objects or are assaulted during the service, is indeed proof that the persons in question are not in charge of a public service, because otherwise they would be covered by the ordinary statute provided for law enforcement officers.

Also excluding the role ofpublic service appointee is the type of relationship that binds the stadium assistants to the companies. 'For the performance of the aforementioned services,' reads the judgement, 'the organising companies, authorised private security institutes, supply agencies and other companies contracting the services may resort to all forms of subordinate work, including intermittent work and occasional ancillary work'. In the absence of the 'qualification', therefore, the offence of bribery cannot be charged. The conviction is annulled with the formula 'because the fact does not exist'.