Audiencia Provincial; 2017-11-03; AAP B 7087/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:ES:APB:2017:7087A
Date: 2017-11-03
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: Spain

82017ES1103(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a dispute between Spanish natural persons and the Spanish football club FC Barcelona on one side (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs’) and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) on the other side. The plaintiffs sought action to declare a financial penalty imposed by the defendant for breach of UEFA Disciplinary Rules (inappropriate behaviour of fans during the match held in Spain) as null and void.
The Juzgado de Primera Instancia nº 44 de Barcelona (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) declared the lack of its jurisdiction to hear the case by virtue of Article 65(3) of LEC (1) referring to the Swiss domicile of the defendant and therefore declaring the jurisdiction of the Swiss courts over this dispute.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) alleging mainly several breaches of Spanish national law and in addition a breach of Article 5(3) of the new Lugano Convention (2), according to which ‘a person domiciled in a State bound by this Convention may, in another State bound by this Convention, be sued, in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’. The plaintiffs also appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance which rejected their application for provisional measures concerning the suspension of the financial penalty in accordance with Article 31 of the new Lugano Convention.
The Court of Appeal rejected the grounds for an appeal based on national law citing the international principles establishing jurisdiction as relevant in this case. The Court of Appeal cited the general principle provided for in Article 2 of the new Lugano Convention, according to which ‘persons domiciled in a State bound by this Convention shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that State’. Furthermore, Article 22(2) of this Convention lays down exclusive jurisdiction for proceedings which have as their object the validity of the decisions of organs of 'companies, other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons'. In such proceedings, the exclusive jurisdiction belongs to ‘the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the company, legal person or association has its seat’. These general rules may be overcome by the principles of special jurisdiction laid down in Articles 5-7 of the Convention. However, Article 5(3) cannot be applied in the present case, as neither contractual liability nor any damage was the subject of the dispute, but the anullment of orders issued by the defendant was sought instead.
The appeal concerning the rejection of provisional measures was also dismissed. The Court of Appeal stated that the provisional measures were not denied on the grounds of a lack of international jurisdiction, but on the basis of the provisions of the LEC, which were applied correctly to this specific dispute.
Therefore, the appeal was rejected, and the decision of the Court of First Instance was upheld.
(1) Ley 1/2000, de 7 de enero, de Enjuiciamiento Civil (LEC) (Civil Procedure Act).
(2) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.