Ítélkezési gyakorlat

  • Az ügy részletei
    • Nemzeti azonosító: Capital Court of Appeals, Judgment Pf.20918/2017/4
    • 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
    • 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 have to establish.

  • Tények

    The plaintiff entered into a travel contract with a travel company. However, when the contract fell through, it turned out that the travel company had insufficient security funds to fully compensate the plaintiff. The plaintiffs consequently pressed a shared claim against the Hungarian state 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.

  • 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 surmised that there could be certain facts that would exonerate the state from paying, but this is not the case here. The court further highlighted that the sole reason for the damages was ultimately that the implementation of article 7 of the Directive was incorrect.

    Teljes szöveg: Teljes szöveg

  • Kapcsolódó ügyek

    Nincs találat

  • Jogi szakirodalom

    Nincs találat

  • Eredmény

    The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the Court of First Fnstance.