Case C‑430/13

Ilona Baradics and Others

v

QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd Magyarországi Fióktelepe
and
Magyar Állam

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Package travel, package holidays and package tours — National legislation laying down minimum percentages for the security that a travel organiser must provide in order to refund, in the event of insolvency, money paid over by consumers)

Summary — Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 16 January 2014

1.        Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the case-law — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99)

2.        Approximation of laws — Package travel, package holidays and package tours — Directive 90/314 — Article 7 — National legislation not providing an effective guarantee of the refund of all money paid over and repatriation in the event of the travel organiser’s insolvency — Unlawful

(Council Directive 90/314, Art. 7)

3.        Approximation of laws — Package travel, package holidays and package tours — Directive 90/314 — Protection against the risk of insolvency or bankruptcy of the travel organiser — Implementation — Powers of the Member States — Limits

(Council Directive 90/314, Art. 7)

1.        See the text of the decision.

(see para. 27)

2.        Article 7 of Directive 90/314 on package travel, package holidays and package tours must be interpreted as precluding national legislation where the detailed rules laid down therein do not achieve the result of ensuring that the consumer is provided with an effective guarantee of the refund of all money paid over and repatriation in the event of insolvency on the part of the travel organiser. It is for the referring court to establish whether that is the case as regards the national legislation at issue in the dispute before it.

In this connection, there is no indication in either the recitals in the preamble to the directive or in the wording of Article 7 to suggest that the guarantee provided for in that article might be limited.

(see paras 37, 41, operative part 1)

3.        Article 7 of Directive 90/314 on package travel, package holidays and package tours must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State has no discretion as regards the ambit of the risks that fall to be covered by the security to be provided by the travel organiser or retailer for the benefit of consumers. It is for the referring court to determine whether the criteria laid down by the Member State concerned for setting the amount of the security have the object or effect of limiting the ambit of the risks that fall to be covered by the security, in which case they would clearly be incompatible with the obligations under the directive and would constitute a sufficiently serious infringement of EU law, which, subject to a finding of a direct causal link, might give rise to liability on the part of the Member State concerned.

In this connection, national legislation properly transposes the obligations under Article 7 of the directive only if, whatever the detailed rules laid down in that legislation, it achieves the result of providing the consumer with an effective guarantee of the refund of all money paid over and repatriation in the event of the travel organiser’s insolvency.

(see paras 44, 47, operative part 2)