Facts
Parties and procedural history:
The complainant [A.] , owner of a property in [U.] , made this property available to the club [B.] free of charge from October 2009. From summer 2016 onwards, conflicts arose between him and the board members regarding the use of the property. [A.] terminated the interim use agreement as of the end of June 2017. In a letter dated 8 August 2017, he, as a club member, requested access to internal club documents. The club informed him on 23 August 2017 that he had been excluded from the club by a board resolution dated 11 July 2017. [A.] challenged the exclusion internally within the club. The general meeting on 12 March 2018 adjourned the decision, while that on 13 March 2019 confirmed the exclusion unanimously. The requested information was not provided.
On 7 February 2019, [A.] filed a claim with the District Court of Baden seeking a declaration of nullity of the club exclusion, invalidation of the resolutions of the general meetings of 2018 and 2019, and the return of all club documents for the years 2014 to 2019. With a decision dated 20 November 2019, the District Court dismissed the claim. Against this decision, [A.] filed an appeal with the Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau on 9 October 2020, which was dismissed with costs by judgment dated 26 May 2021. With a submission dated 9 July 2021, [A.] appealed to the Federal Supreme Court and essentially reiterated the same requests.
Factual findings of the Federal Supreme Court:
The Federal Supreme Court based its judgment on the findings of the lower courts. According to the lower courts, the complainant was a passive member of the club. The board resolution of 11 July 2017 on the exclusion of the complainant was communicated, and the exclusion was confirmed by the general meeting on 13 March 2019 following an internal appeal procedure. The complainant contested the validity of the exclusion and requested the return of club documents, in particular to verify the legality of the 2015 amendment to the articles of association and the club management.
Considerations
1. Admissibility of the appeal and procedural issues:
The Federal Supreme Court examined the civil law appeal pursuant to Art. 72 para. 1, Art. 75 para. 1 and Art. 90 FSCA. It found that the appeal was insufficiently substantiated, in particular with regard to the alleged violation of the right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 Cst.) and the formal requirements for evidence requests. The complainant had not clearly assigned his requests to the respective factual allegations, and the Higher Court qualified the applications as inadmissible amendments to the claim. Furthermore, the Federal Supreme Court criticised that the complainant had not sufficiently addressed the key reasons for the lower court's decision, but merely presented his own view of the matter. Finally, the appeal was partially inadmissible as it referred to the first-instance decision, which had been superseded by the Higher Court's decision.
2. Right to present evidence and request for production of documents:
The complainant alleged a violation of Art. 160 and Art. 164 CPC, as his requests for production of documents were rejected. The Federal Supreme Court held that a means of evidence is only properly offered if it can be clearly assigned to a factual allegation. The complainant had not sufficiently specified his requests, and the Higher Court rejected the applications as untimely or vague. Moreover, the request for production of documents was excessive in scope, as it covered documents over several years without any concrete connection to the alleged violations of rights. The Federal Supreme Court saw no violation of the right to present evidence, as the complainant had not met the formal requirements.
3. Club exclusion and membership status:
The complainant contested the validity of the club exclusion and argued that he had been an active member. The Federal Supreme Court referred to Art. 72 CC, according to which the exclusion of members is only permissible if there are statutory grounds or important reasons. The lower courts had found that the complainant was a passive member and that the exclusion had been decided for important reasons. The complainant was unable to provide strict proof of his active membership, as he did not…