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.