Ítélkezési gyakorlat

  • Az ügy részletei
    • Nemzeti azonosító: Capital Court of Appeals, Judgment Pf.21122/2017/7
    • Tagállam: Magyarország
    • Közhasználatú név:N/A
    • Határozat típusa: Megtámadott bírósági határozat
    • A határozat napja: 14/02/2018
    • Bíróság: Capital Court of Appeals
    • Tárgy:
    • Felperes:
    • Alperes: Ministry of National Development, Budapest Capital Government Agency
    • Kulcsszavak: consumer rights, travel, travel organiser
  • Az irányelv cikkei
    Package Travel Directive, Article 7 Package Travel Directive, Article 7
  • Megjegyzés

    Dispute regarding the Hungarian implementation of the Directive, in relation to the security fund organizers must establish.

  • Tények

    The (many) plaintiffs entered into a travel contract with a travel company. However, their travel was ultimately not arranged because of issues from the travel company’s end. The plaintiffs consequently pressed a shared claim against the travel company, the Hungarian government, and the government agency that kept the security funds in trust, claiming that because Article 7 of 90/314/EEC was incorrectly implemented into Hungarian domestic law, they suffered losses. Specifically, they claimed that based on CJEU practice, Article 7 necessitated/demanded that the member states ensure, through legislation, that a full restitution can be made from the security fund that organisers have to establish based on the article. However, the Hungarian domestic regulation that implemented this article of the Directive did not require travel organisers to ensure that the security fund was large enough for them to make a full restitution to the wronged parties. The travel company was removed from the proceedings in the first instance, and afterwards, the process focused on the other two defendants.

  • Jogi kérdés
    Whether Article 7 of the Directive was correctly implemented into Hungarian law.
  • Határozat

    The courts agreed that Article 7 was not correctly implemented into Hungarian law, and thus, an obligation exists on behalf of the state to reimburse the plaintiffs for their losses as a result of this. The court highlighted that the state cannot escape responsibility, as their actions in implementing Article 7 were incoherent with the goals of the Directive, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

    Teljes szöveg: Teljes szöveg

  • Kapcsolódó ügyek

    Nincs találat

  • Jogi szakirodalom

    Nincs találat

  • Eredmény

    The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.