Section 147 (1) Czech Criminal Code; Grievous bodily harm by negligence: Whomever negligently causes serious bodily injury to another shall be punished by imprisonment for up to two years or by prohibition from the activity. 
Section 2900 Czech Civil Code; Duty to Prevent Damage: If the circumstances of the case or the customs of private life (societal norms) so require, every person is obliged to act in such a way as to avoid unjustifiable injury to the liberty, life, health or property of another.

The defendant was belaying a climber on 28.06.2016 at around 20:20 hours in XY, on a rock path called J. M. near XY Street. While lowering the victim from a pre-cliff, i.e. from a height of about 10 metres above the ground, he failed to sufficiently secure the free end of the rope , in that he did not make a knot at the end of the rope to prevent the rope from slipping through the grigri device.  He did not check the free end of the rope before or while he was lowering the victim.  In particular, he did not check how much rope was left in order to prevent the rope from slipping through the belay device.  The rope was evidently too short and it slipped through the grigri device, causing the victim to fall from a height of about 7 metres to the ground.  The victim suffered a C fracture of the right tibia; a comminuted fracture of the left calcaneus; and a compression fracture of the first and second lumbar vertebrae. The treatment period lasted until 7 November 2016, and was forensically assessed as a prolonged serious health impairment, i.e. a serious injury to health. 

The defendant climber argued that he committed no crime. According to him the rope was long enough for rappelling, but that the shortening occurred when the other climber tied himself in a few metres from the end of the rope, and not between ten and twenty centimetres from the end of the rope according to Czech Mountaineering Association methodology.  He argued that the location of the other climbers' tie-in on the rope, meant that there was not enough rope for rappelling. He added that the methodology being considered by the court was not binding; it was only a recommendation; and it was not generally followed in the mountaineering community. He further submitted that the court had failed to take into account other circumstances of the victim's fall, particularly the fact that by the time the climbers were rappelling, it was  raining; a thunderstorm was approaching; climbing in the rain is unpleasant; and that the rope and the belay device both slip when wet.  The defendant submitted that blame for the consequences could not be entirely attributed to him alone. He further submitted that circumstances precluding unlawfulness should have been taken into account, particularly in the case of a sporting activity. He commented that sport is identified by law as a socially beneficial act, which is in accordance with the law. The level of risk in sport, particularly mountaineering, is generally higher, and with it the uncertainty of the occurrence of a consequence, and this condition is also met when the risk and social benefit are weighed. Both the accused and the victim were trying to avoid a more serious imminent danger by seeking safety from inclement weather. Under these conditions, the accused submitted that no conflict with good morals or public interest could be found. He further stated that the level of danger in sport is generally higher. In the case of mountaineering, it is an extreme sport and a higher degree of expertise and professionalism is therefore required. The victim must have been aware of all the risks which he was taking voluntarily. With regard to the condition of professionalism, he stated that mountaineering, and in particular rock climbing, cannot, in view of the nature of the activity practiced, which is carried out in the open air without much public attention, be described as a professional sport outside a very small group of people, since the possibility of making a living from that activity is very limited and mountaineering is not, in principle, practised professionally. He added, however, that any climber must have a sufficient level of knowledge and a sufficient level of professionalism to be able to engage in the sport successfully, given the demanding nature of the sport. Both the accused and the victim had been mountaineering for a number of years and were fully familiar with the fact that mountaineering is a demanding sport involving a high risk of injury. He added that the criminal sanctioning of athletes in cases where the act is not connected with an intention to harm another,  or an intention to seriously violate the sports' standards with a view to their own benefit; and where the athlete seeks to protect another athlete because of another imminent danger, could result in the loss or decrease in popularity of the sport as a socially beneficial activity.

Failure to comply with the methodology of the Czech Mountaineering Association by the belayer means a failure to take the required level of care, which may result in criminal liability of the belayer if a serious harm injury occurs.  On this basis it can be concluded that climbers  should follow the aforementioned methodology, which, for this type of activity - climbing - stipulates the general prevention principle in Section 2900 of the Civil Code.
Although the victim did not tie himself to the rope at the appropriate distance from the end as he should have according to the said methodology, the defendant should have ensured the safety of the victim by the fact he was belaying him. He failed to fulfil that duty not only by failing to make a belay knot at the end of the rope (in breach of the above-mentioned methodology), which should have been tied precisely in case of faults on the part of the climber, but also by not paying sufficient attention to the remaining length of the rope, which he did not control. It was this error that led to the serious injury of the victim.
The methodology of the Czech Mountaineering Association is important, as it is the only regulatory tool for this very risky (extreme) sport, which is supposed to encourage persons who practise the sport, to minimize the likelihood of accidents. Therefore, its importance cannot be underestimated, as there are no other rules and the need for them is obvious. The rules serve to increase the safety of participants in the sport.
The purpose of both the general regulations and the rules of sport are, amongst other things, to protect the safety of participants from conduct that may lead to injury. Therefore, if in the course of a sporting activity a participant culpably violates the rules of the activity, thereby causing injury to another person (another participant), then, taking into account in particular the nature of the activity and the seriousness of the violation of the rules, criminal liability of the participant is not excluded. Therefore, if he culpably fails to comply with the above rules, a breach of the so-called general preventive duty imposed on everyone under Section 2900 of the Civil Code, or if a failure to observe the necessary degree of caution may be inferred. If he negligently causes serious bodily harm to another by such a breach, he is criminally liable for the offence of bodily harm under Section 147 of the Criminal Code.

This is an important case both for the UIAA and for member federations because:                                                                                                                          
1. It explains the “test for negligence“, or in other words the test for the duty of care owed to  a climbing partner;
2.    It recognizes UIAA member federation recommendations as to climbing methodology and used those recommendations as a start point for the test of the negligence.  The decision emphasizes:
a.    the role and responsibility of national mountaineering associations;
b.    the requirement for member federations to maintain currency in relation to proper practices and methodology;
c.    the duty of national mountaineering associations to consider information published by the member federation and what is recommended as best  practice.
3.    It is helpful for both member federations and for lawyers who advise member federations or mountaineers who have similar circumstances to contend with;
4.    The judgement leaves some areas open for further discussion, for example, what specific methodology is the court referring to?  Does it have to be an official book, text book, mountaineering federation website content, or a method described by an expert as the correct methodology?