Cup derby against GAK

Five Sturm fans in court for rioting

There were riots in the Cup derby in November 2023.

(Bild: GEPA/GEPA pictures)

Five supporters of Bundesliga soccer club SK Sturm went on trial on Wednesday at the Graz Criminal Court for rioting during the Cup derby on November 2, 2023. Back then, dozens of fans had climbed over fences in the stadium and there were wild brawls with GAK fans. 

The five accused were investigated and, according to the indictment, are alleged to have participated in the offense of serious communal violence. The men denied guilt.

In her opening statement, the prosecutor described how the Sturm fans had been incited by whips before the match. Damage to property had already occurred during the fan march through the city. "Then the fans were let into the sectors and there they decided to form a crowd. At least 30 to 50 people got together to break into the opposing sectors. Not to chat with the GAK fans there, but to inflict violence on them," was their accusation. This constituted serious communal violence. One of the accused was also charged with attempted assault and theft of GAK fan merchandise.

GAK fan suffers base of skull fracture
The supporters of the "Red Devils" had just prepared their choreography in their sector when the Sturm fans approached them and partially punched and kicked them. According to the public prosecutor, one victim suffered a basilar skull fracture. However, the attacker could not be identified.

"When these fans joined together, all the defendants joined in. They ran along in the mob, climbed over fences and were partially disinhibited by alcohol. They joined the mob of violent Sturm fans," the prosecutor accused. Some of them were hooded, wore hoodies, gloves and face masks. "There were unsightly scenes - pure violence. There was punching, kicking, even at people lying on the ground." One of the accused fell into the stadium ditch during the escape and was seriously injured. "That's how we were able to track him down." The others were investigated because some of them were known to the authorities and were recognized on videos, the prosecutor explained. "The people sitting here may not have fought on the front line, but they are people who are inclined to join the horde - that should also be punished."

(Bild: Pail Sepp/Sepp Pail)

Student had "allowed himself to be carried away"
The five defense attorneys each stated that their clients had not joined a collective conspiracy to commit violence. Some of the accused claim not to have been in the stadium at the time of the riots. Photos from the files would show other people, according to the tenor.

The first of the five men, a business school student, stated that he had been in Graz with his grandparents and had only received tickets shortly before the game. "I take responsibility for getting carried away and going along," he admitted. He had also climbed over a fence, but then immediately realized "that I had no business being there". He turned back, but was arrested by the police.

Balaclava on and mouthguard case in his pocket
His lawyer spoke of "active remorse" because he had turned around without hurting anyone else. And he had allowed himself to be arrested without resistance. "You can't lump everyone in the dock together," said the lawyer.

(Bild: Pail Sepp/Sepp Pail)

During questioning by the judge, however, the 20-year-old defendant became entangled in inconsistencies. He was wearing a balaclava during the incident and a tooth protection case was found in his jacket. The accused stated that both had already been in his jacket when he had taken it out of the box in his grandparents' former nursery. The judge wanted to know why he had put them on when he was there as an innocent bystander. "I imagined that it was part of the routine. I knew the customs because I've been involved in fan culture for a long time." When asked further, he said: "I was aware when I put the cap on that there would be arguments." He had put it on for "self-protection". "What did you want to protect yourself from?" the judge asked. At first he tried to evade the question, but ultimately he admitted "so as not to be recognizable". He could not explain this rationally.

The questioning of the other defendants and witnesses was planned for the afternoon.