Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

848 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE 20) As it could not be established unequivocally on the basis of the Government Decree, who is obliged for achieving a certain result: the legislator, i.e. the Hungarian State, the insurance company or the registration office, the passengers who suffered damage owing to the insufficient financial security named, as defendants, the insurance company, the Hungarian State and the registration office in their statement of claim. 21) The courts proceeding in the actions 2 identically established that: • based on Section 10(5) of the Government Decree, the insurance company/ /financial institution is only obliged to assume responsibility up to the amount determined in the financial security contract, and may not be obliged to effect payments in addition thereto, • based on Section 2(1) of the Government Decree, the registration office controlled the existence of the financial security announced by the tour operator and corresponding to the estimated turnover (the contract concluded with the insurance company), thus it met its obligation prescribed in the Decree, i.e. it proceeded as it is expected from the office in the given situation, • in respect of the responsibility of the Hungarian State, it has been stated that based on the judgements of ECJ 3 passed in similar cases, the Hungarian State would have been obliged to enforce the appropriate financial security (cover), and the tour operator’s attributable, fraudulent conduct, if any, shall not exempt it from the responsibility. The judgements pointed out that the regulation, whereby a tour operator is obliged to make available the cover estimated on the turnover reported by him, is obviously inappropriate to achieve the objectives defined in the Directive. In this case the tour operator himself establishes what amount of cover (financial security) it intends to make available, but this does not secure the actually necessary cover under any circumstances. 2 Baradics and Others, Fővárosi Bíróság (Budapest Metropolitan Court) 37:P.21.196/2010/17. Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Budapest Metropolitan Court of Appeal) 3.Pf.20.182/2014/2. Gráczerné and Others, Fővárosi Bíróság (Budapest Metropolitan Court) 28.P.20.631/2017/9. Nagy Imre and Others, Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest Metropolitan Regional Court) 28.P.25.571/2016/5., Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Budapest Metropolitan Court of Appeal) 3.Pf.21.122/2017/7/II. Óváry, Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest Metropolitan Regional Court) 17.P.21.828/2017/6. Cziráki and Others, PKKB (Central District Court of Pest) 23.P.88.598/2015/14. Horváth Kornélia, Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest Metropolitan Regional Court) 29.P.21.940/2017/9. Nógrádi, Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest Metropolitan Regional Court) 28.P.22.619/2017/21. 3 Joined Cases C-178/94, C-179/94 and C-188/94–C-190/94 Dillenkofer and Others, Case C-140/97 Rechberger and Others, Case C-134/11 Blödel-Pawlik, Case C-430/13 Baradics and Others.