274 TOURISM LAW IN EUROPE 18) Government Decree 213/1996 of 23 December effective as of 1 January 1997 did not oblige tour operators to have sufficient financial security, but only to conclude a contract with the insurance company/financial institution in the amount equal to 3, 12 or 20% of the planned future revenues established by them unequivocally. 19) The Decree does not contain any provision that would oblige the Hungarian State or any agency or office thereof to enforce the obligation to achieve a certain result as defined in Clause 74 of the judgement passed in the ECJ Rechberger case. 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 actions2 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, 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.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==