Firecracker throwing at the Montpellier-Clermont match: the civil parties are claiming, in total, more than €550,000 in compensation for the damage

Le gardien de but de Clermont, Mory Diaw, était sorti de la pelouse sur une civière. MAXPPP – JEAN-MICHEL MART

The events occurred on October 8 at the Mosson stadium. On the bench of the civil parties: the two clubs, the Clermont goalkeeper, the Football League and the National Union of Professional Footballers. During the criminal court hearing this Thursday, May 2, the public prosecutor requested a six-month suspended prison sentence for the alleged perpetrator of the firecracker throwing. Judgment expected on May 16.

The addition of the civil parties, in compensation for the damage suffered, is particularly serious in the case of the firecracker thrown during the Montpellier-Clermont match, last October 8 at the Mosson stadium . This Thursday, May 2, during the hearing where the alleged author and accomplice of this act were tried, the sums requested before the criminal court exceeded 550,000 €.

The MHSC’s lawyer, Me Pascal Adde-Soubra, requested "strong compensation for financial loss" and requested, jointly and severally from the two defendants, 514 000 €. Remember that, as part of the sanctions imposed on it, the Montpellier club had one point withdrawn from the standings (plus one suspended point). In addition, the match had to be replayed behind closed doors and the following two matches, with partial closure of the Étang de Thau stand.

The defense protests against the sums requested

On the Clermont side, 4,000,000 euros; repairs were requested for the benefit of the goalkeeper who saw the firecracker explode one meter from him. Victim of temporary headaches and tinnitus, he had benefited from one day of ITT. The Auvergne club, through its lawyer, also figures at more than 36,000 euros; expenses incurred in connection with this replayed match. To this are added 1 500 € legal costs claimed from each of the defendants by the Professional Football League. The Union of Professional Footballers, also a civil party and represented at the hearing, is also seeking reimbursement of legal costs, plus 1 € symbolic.

"We have to come back to earth !", stormed Me Anthony Chabert in the face of these pretensions. For the lawyer of the young person prosecuted for having supplied the firecracker, thrown in the 91st minute of the match, while Montpellier was leading 4 to 2, we are certainly in "the trial of the stupidity", that of the two supporters, but also in that of "the disconnection, with a football world that only looks at its navel. We are in reality, we have two young people who are gambling with their lives." For Me Michaël Corbier, the lawyer for the main defendant, the amounts requested "condemn (the defendants) to work all their lives" to pay the bill for this gesture.

Among the requisitions, a stadium ban for three years

Against them, prosecutor Jean-Christophe Tixier requested six months of suspended prison sentence for one, and for both, 200 hours of community service. But also, the obligation to report to the police station or gendarmerie closest to their home, at half-time, during all MHSC matches, for a period of three years. "My client works in catering, it is impossible for him to put this score into practice", protests Me Chabert. Joined by his defense colleague: "The obligation to score must be reserved for those whose personality is particularly worrying. This is not the case for my client."

At the bar, the two young people aged 23 and 25, childhood friends but not very supportive in court, murmur when they answer questions from President Alix Fredon and her colleagues. assessors. The person being prosecuted for throwing the projectile explains having thrown it with his back to the stadium, over his head, thinking that he would land behind the cages. But for the prosecutor, there was indeed an intention "to reach the Clermont goalkeeper from a distance."

A firecracker lover

The young person who is accused of having given the firecracker to the first, for his part, denies the facts. He claims that his testimony is not consistent with what he told investigators. The lawyer for the other co-defendant underlines "two types of behavior : one which assumes, the other which does not’ rsquo;do not assume." We learn at the audience that the latter is a lover of firecrackers, and that he happens to be in trouble. go and explode some in the scrubland. The MHSC lawyer recalls that, according to the recommendations, this type of explosive (a Category F3 Bulldog) must not be thrown less than 25 meters from any individual.

At the end of a hearing lasting almost three hours, the judgment was reserved until May 16.

I subscribe to read more