The underlying facts of this case are not mentioned in the judgement, but from the appeal decision it is clear that the plaintiff periodically organized, as a travel organizer, incentive business trips for the defendant. After a certain time, a discussion arose between the parties and they ended up before court for unpaid invoices. Whereas defendant invoked the protection provided by the provisions set out in Directive 90/314 (implemented into Belgian law in the Act of 16 February 1994), the plaintiff stated that this Directive/Act cannot be applied as the contract was concluded between two corporate entities, and not between a traveller (natural person) and the travel organizer.