Article 17 - Right to property
Article 24 - The rights of the child
Key facts of the case:
In 2009, a private company and a minor represented by his parents, X, concluded a contract for the provision of services for development and career support for a sportsperson aimed at professional development of X. The contract was concluded for the term of 15 years and stipulated that the young sportsperson will pay remuneration consisting of 10% of the income received over the following 15 years. In 2020, the company brought proceedings against X and his legal representatives seeking payment of the remuneration under the agreement (10 % of his 16,637,777. 99 euros income).
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The Supreme Court was called to assess whether the contract concluded between a trader carrying on its professional activity in the field of the development and coaching of sportspersons, on the one hand, and, on the other, a minor represented by his parents who, at the time when the contract was concluded was not carrying on a professional activity in the field of the sport in question, fall within the scope of consumer protection (Council Directive 93/13/EEC). An important aspect of the case is whether the contract was in compliance with the child’s best interests (Article 24(2) of the Charter).
Outcome of the case:
The Supreme Court raised doubts as to the interpretation of EU law (especially Directive 93/13/EEC in relation to Article 24 (2) and 17 (1) of the Charter. Therefore, the Supreme Court referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling. At the moment, the Supreme Court waits for the preliminary ruling.
[6] The Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted the term ‘consumer’ in several cases, except in the area of sport.
…
[9.1] In the Supreme Court’s view, having regard to the protection of the child enshrined in Article 24(2) of the Charter, it is imperative to clarify how the courts should effectively verify that a contract between a service provider and a consumer who was a minor at the time the contract had been concluded and was therefore subject to the requirements of Directive 93/13, is not contrary to the child’s best interests. The Supreme Court must also verify whether a contract of that nature is excessively restrictive of the minor’s right to property protected by Article 17(1) of the Charter.
[9.2] On the other hand, if it is found that the agreement does not fall within the scope of application of Directive 93/13 and that, in addition, the Directive precludes the national courts from applying the consumer protection provisions under the Directive to contracts of that nature, the Supreme Court enquires whether it is necessary to determine whether the agreement infringes the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter and referred to above, in view of the fact that sporting activities as such are included in the scope of application of the EU law (see sections 7.1 and 7.2. of this decision).
[10] Having regard to the foregoing, the Supreme Court considers it necessary to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union in order to clarify how the provisions on unfair terms in consumer contracts are to be applied.
[6] Eiropas Savienības Tiesa ir sniegusi jēdziena „patērētājs” iztulkojumu jau vairākās lietās, tomēr līdz šim tā savā judikatūrā nav pievērsusies patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības normu piemērojamībai sporta jomā.
[..]
[9.1] Ņemot vērā Eiropas Savienības Pamattiesību hartas 24. panta 2. punktā paredzēto bērnu aizsardzību, Senāta ieskatā ir būtiski noskaidrot, kā tiesai faktiski pārliecināties, vai līgums, ko slēdzis piegādātājs un patērētājs, kas līguma noslēgšanas brīdī bijis nepilngadīgs, un uz ko tādējādi attiecināmas Direktīvas 93/13 prasības, nav pretējs bērna interesēm. Turklāt tiesai nepieciešamas pārliecināties arī par to, vai šāds līgums pārmērīgi neierobežo nepilngadīgās personas tiesības uz īpašumu, ko aizsargā Eiropas Savienības Pamattiesību hartas 17. panta 1. punkts.
[9.2] Savukārt, ja izrādītos, ka Līgums neietilpst Direktīvas 93/13 piemērošanas jomā un ka turklāt šī direktīva liedz valsts tiesām šajā direktīvā ietvertās patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības normas piemērot šādiem līgumiem, Senātam rodas jautājums, vai nebūtu vērtējams tas, vai Līgums neaizskar iepriekš minētās Eiropas Savienības Pamattiesību hartas noteiktās personas pamattiesības, ņemot vērā to, ka sporta aktivitātes kā tādas ir Eiropas Savienības tiesību aktu piemērošanas jomā (sk. šī lēmuma 7.1.–7.2. punktu).
[10] Ievērojot minēto, lai noskaidrotu, kā piemērojamas normas par negodīgiem noteikumiem patērētāju līgumos, Senāts uzskata par nepieciešamu vērsties Eiropas Savienības Tiesā.
