Case C-125/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commission litiges voyages by order of that court of 4 December 2003 in the case of Guy Denuit and Betty Cordenier against Transorient – Mosaïque Voyages and Culture SA
Date: 2004-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arbitration, consumer protection, contract, contract terms, fixing of prices, interpretation of the law, price increase, price reduction, travel agency

12.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/3

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commission
litiges voyages by order of that court of 4 December 2003
in the case of Guy Denuit and Betty Cordenier against
Transorient – Mosaïque Voyages and Culture SA

interpreted as requiring the travel organiser and/or retailer
revise the price downwards if the consumer has not asked it
to do so?

(Case C-125/04)

(2004/C 156/05)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Commission litiges voyages
(Belgium), of 4 December 2003, received at the Court Registry
on 8 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Guy
Denuit and Betty Cordenier against Transorient – Mosaïque
Voyages and Culture SA on the following question:

1. Where a clause in a contract between a consumer and a
[travel] organiser and/or retailer provides only for the possi-
bility of an upward price revision and states precisely how
the calculations is to be made, solely in order to take
account of variations set down in an exhaustive list by
Article 4(4) of Directive 90/314/EEC, must that article be
interpreted as implicitly requiring downward price revision
according to the same method of calculation?

2. Where a clause in a contract between a consumer and an
organiser and/or retailer provides for the possibility of both
upward and downward price revision without
stating
precisely how the calculation is to be made, and solely in
order to take account of variations set down in an exhaus-
tive list by Article 4(4)(a) of Directive 90/314/EEC, must
that article be interpreted as invalidating the entire clause or
as limiting that invalidity to upward price revision?

3. Where a clause in a contract between a consumer and an
organiser and/or retailer gives only the organiser and/or
retailer the possibility of revising prices upwards or down-
wards states precisely how the calculation is to be made,
solely to take account of variations set down in an exhaus-
tive list down by Article 4(4)(a) of Directive 90/314/EEC,
must
that article be interpreted as rendering the whole
clause void, or is its invalidity limited to upward price revi-
sion?

Action brought on 2 April 2004 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-166/04)

(2004/C 156/06)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 April 2004
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Maria Patakia and Michel Van Beek, Legal Advisers in its
Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary
for laying down and implementing a cohesive, specific and
integrated legal
regime capable of ensuring sustainable
management and effective protection of Special Protection
Area GR2310001 ‘Acheloos Delta, Messolonghi/Aitolikon
Lagoon and the estuary of the River Evinos and Echinades
Islands’, in the light of the conservation objectives of Direc-
tive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, (1) the
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 4(1) and (2) of that directive;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

In accordance with settled case-law of the Court of Justice of
the European Communities, a Member State cannot plead
internal circumstances or difficulties to justify its failure to
comply with obligations and time-limits flowing from Com-
munity law.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 5 April 2004 by JCB Service against
the judgment delivered on 13 January 2004 by the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in case T-67/01 between JCB Service and the
Commission of the European Communities.

(Case C-167/04 P)

(2004/C 156/07)

4. Where a clause in the contract between a consumer and an
organiser and/or retailer gives, both the travel organiser
and/or retailer and the consumer the possibility of bene-
fiting from upward and downward price revision, and states
precisely how the calculation is to be made, solely to take
account of the variations set down in an exhaustive list by
Article 4(4)(a) of Directive 90/314/EEC, must that article be

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 January 2004
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in case T-67/01 (1) between JCB Service and
the Commission of the European Communities, was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5
April 2004 by JCB Service, established in Rocester, Stafford-
shire (United Kingdom), represented by E. Morgon de Rivery,
lawyer.