The last legal attempt by Grêmio to prevent Flamengo from supporting Maracanã in this Wednesday’s game, in a match valid for the quarterfinals of the Copa do Brasil, was not accepted by the Superior Court of Sports Justice (STJD).
In a decision of the vice president of the STJD, José Perdiz de Jesus, the agency announced early in the afternoon that the “path adopted by the club was not adequate” with the request for the guarantee mandate and announced the filing of the request.
Thereby, the Rio de Janeiro club’s injunction that allows fans to return to their games as home team remains valid. Flamengo may receive just over 24,000 fans (or 35% of the capacity of Maracanã), in the first of three test events authorized by the city of Rio.
The focus of the legal battle between Flamengo and the rest of the clubs in Brasileirão remains in progress. In addition to legal attempts, the other 19 clubs are also evaluating the possibility of postponing matches for the next round of competition.
+ President of Grêmio meets with CBF interim
The club from Rio Grande do Sul defended that fans should not be allowed in the stadium in this Wednesday’s game based on the protocol of return to the public made by the CBF. The document provides that, in eliminatory matches, if a square is not allowed to receive supporters in the stands, the two games should take place without fans.
Maracanã will have an audience for Flamengo x Grêmio — Photo: Alexandre Vidal / Flamengo
In addition to Grêmio’s initiative, there is also a request from 17 other clubs in the Brazilian Championship for the injunction that allows Flamengo to receive the public to be suspended or judged before the deadline. The STJD has the subject on the agenda of the 23rd of September.
Grêmio even threatened not to take the field with fans in the stands. But he backed off because of the possibility of consequences of an eventual absence. In the first game, in Porto Alegre, the club from Rio Grande do Sul was defeated by 4-0 and will play a mixed team at Maracanã.
Check below an excerpt from the STJD order:
“The filing of this Writ of Mandamus in less than 48 hours (forty-eight hours) before the departure of the match makes it impossible, in my view, to analyze the request to prevent the presence of the public who purchased tickets and followed the required sanitary protocols, adding the comment that such a measure could generate a tumult of nefarious proportions in the Stadium itself or its dependencies.
Obiter dictum, it is noteworthy that the Statute of the Fan makes express reference to the consumer microsystem, requiring from the entities responsible for sporting events, caution in the deliberation of deleted decisions that affect the predictability of those fans who have already purchased tickets, mainly in casu, when respected current health regulations.
As for the main and preliminary request to suspend the effects of the decision of the President of the STJD, I understand that the Applicable Appeal is the Voluntary Appeal, provided for in article 146 of the CBJD, which must be distributed to a rapporteur as provided for in article 78-A of the CBJD, as well as provided for in paragraph 1. of article 119 of the aforementioned Code, which regulates Unnamed Measures such as that, whose decision is attacked in this Writ of Guarantee.
Notwithstanding the notable and significant arguments presented by the Appellant, the hypotheses of applicability of the unnamed measures and the writ of guarantee must be kept rigid, which, except in the case of teratology, would make it possible to know the petition, which is not the case in the case records.
Therefore, the Petitioner, the Interested Third Party Clubs, the Football Administration Entity and the CBF, may have their eventual Voluntary Appeals processed as provided for in the CBJD and duly judged by the Full Court in its collegiate composition.
In view of the foregoing, in accordance with the peaceful jurisprudence of the STJD, I DO NOT KNOW this Writ of Guarantee for considering it as a substitute for a legally provided Voluntary Appeal.
After the due notices and the procedural deadlines have elapsed, the records must be filed”.