Nejvyšší soud; 2020-01-31; 30 Cdo 5153/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2020:30.CDO.5153.2017.1
Date: 2020-01-31
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: Czechia

82020CZ0131(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction of the Czech courts resolved by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A football agent and three football fans domiciled in Czechia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs’) brought an action before the Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) against the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) domiciled in Switzerland (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). They demanded the payment of CZK 10.000 as compensation for alleged non-material damage and to oblige the defendant to refrain from the application of their new Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations adopted in 2015 in Prague (hereinafter ‘UEFA Regulations’). This edition of UEFA Regulations brought new rules concerning income and expenses of football clubs and the so-called ‘break-even requirement’ prohibiting football clubs participating in the international leagues organised by the defendant to invest more money than the club has earned in previous seasons. According to the plaintiffs, this rule favours the already rich and well-established clubs and unjustifiably discriminates against smaller or newly established clubs. The plaintiffs suggested that the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts should be established on the basis of Article 5(3) of the new Lugano Convention (1).
The Court of First Instance stated that the subject of the action was the validity of the decision adopted by one of the defendant's organs, cited Article 22(2) of the new Lugano Convention and declared the lack of jurisdiction of the Czech courts in favour of the Swiss courts.
The Vrchní soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) confirmed the first instance conclusion that the real aim of the action was to obtain a decision on the invalidity of the UEFA Regulations. In the view of the Court of Appeal, the plaintiffs were not directly injured parties. The mere fact that the defendant adopted its regulations cannot be considered as actual and certain damage. Neither Article 5(3) of the new Lugano Convention (as alleged by the plaintiffs) nor its Article 22(2) (as alleged by the Court of First Instance) applies to this case, but Article 4(1) instead, which however also points to the lack of jurisdiction of the Czech courts.
The plaintiffs filed a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court. They argued that Article 5(3) of the new Lugano Convention does not require for its application to be the directly injured party, but it allows to bring an action also for those indirectly harmed. The place of adoption of new UEFA Regulations (Prague) also suggests jurisdiction of the Czech courts. The plaintiffs also alleged an infringement of their right to justice and access to courts.
The Supreme Court recalled that Article 5(3) of the new Lugano Convention must be interpreted independently and strictly. On the basis of case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict can only arise provided that a causal connection can be established between the damage and the event in which the damage originates. Also, there must exist a particularly close connection between the dispute and the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur, which justifies the attribution of jurisdiction to those courts for reasons of the sound administration of justice and the efficacious conduct of proceedings. This article cannot be applied in cases where the plaintiffs plead damage as an indirect consequence of the harm potentially suffered by another person. Article 5(3) of the new Lugano Convention, therefore, cannot establish the jurisdiction of the Czech courts due to a lack of direct damage caused to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not provide any evidence that any football club had already suffered a financial loss which they justifiably consider as their own damage.
With regards to the plea alleging an infringement of access to justice, the Supreme Court recalled that access to courts is not an absolute right, but it can be restricted, e.g. by application of international rules for jurisdiction (such as the new Lugano Convention). There is nothing which precludes the plaintiffs to file their action and access courts in Switzerland.
The conclusions of both lower courts concerning the lack of jurisdiction of the Czech courts was confirmed.
(1) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.