CELEX: C1996/354/23
Language: en
Date: 1996-11-23 00:00:00
Title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 12 June 1996 in Case C-95/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de Marseille): URSSAF (Union de Recouvrement des Cotisations de Sécurité Sociale et d'Allocations Familiales) des Bouches-du-Rhône v. Clinique de la Pointe Rouge SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Lack of jurisdiction of Court of Justice)

No C 354/ 12            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23 . 11 . 96
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   4 . If a Member State allows the package travel organizer
                        of 8 October 1996                                  and/or retailer party to a contract to require payment of
                                                                           a deposit of up to 10% towards the travel price, with a
in Joined Cases C-178/94, C-179/94 , C-188/94, C-189/94                    maximum of DM 500, the protective purpose pursued
and C- 190/94 ( references for a preliminary ruling from the               by Article 7 of Directive 90/314/EEC is not satisfied
Landgericht Bonn ): Erich Dillenkofer and Others v. Federal                unless a refund of that deposit is also guaranteed in the
                     Republic of Germany ( 1 )                             event of the insolvency of the package travel organizer
(Directive 90/3 14/EEC on package travel, package holidays                 and/or retailer party to the contract.
and package tours — Non-transposition — Liability of the
   Member State and its obligation to make reparation)
                           ( 96/C 354/22 )
                                                                       5 . Article 7 of Directive 90/3 1 4/EEC is to be interpreted as
                                                                           meaning that the 'security ' of which organizers must
                                                                           offer sufficient evidence is lacking even if, on payment of
                (Language of the case: German)                             the travel price, travellers are in possession of
                                                                           documents of value and that the Federal Republic of
                                                                           Germany could not have omitted altogether to
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be               transpose Directive 90/314/EEC on the basis of the
          published in the European Court Reports)                         Bundesgerichtshofs 'advance payment ' judgment of
                                                                            72 March 1987.
In Joined Cases C-178/94 , C-179/94 , C-188/94 , C-189/94
and C - 190/94 : references to the Court under Article 177 of          6 . Directive 90/314/EEC does not require Member States
the EC Treaty from the Landgericht [ Regional Court] Bonn                  to adopt specific measures in relation to Article 7 in
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                 order to protect package travellers against their own
that court between Erich Dillenkofer, Christian Erdmann,                   negligence.
Hans-Jiirgen Schulte , Anke Heuer, Werner, Ursula and
Torsten Knor and the Federal Republic of Germany — on
                                                                       (>) OJ No C 254 , 10 . 9 . 1994 .
the interpretation of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of
13 June 1990 on package travel , package holidays and
package tours ( OJ No L 158 , 1990 , p. 59 ) — the Court,
composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F.
Mancini , J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , J. L. Murray and L.
Sevon ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
Kapteyn , C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.
Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                                 ORDER OF THE COURT
G. Tesauro, Advocate-General ; R. Grass , Registrar, gave a
judgment on 8 October 1996 , in which it ruled :                                              ( Third Chamber )
                                                                                               of 12 June 1996
1 . Failure to take any measure to transpose a directive in            in Case C-95/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
      order to achieve the result it prescribes within the period      Tribunal de Commerce de Marseille ): URSSAF ( Union de
                                                                       Recouvrement des Cotisations de Sécurité Sociale et
      laid down for that purpose constitutes per se a serious
      breach of Community law and consequently gives rise to           d'Allocations Familiales ) des Bouches-du-Rhône v. Clinique
      a right of reparation for individuals suffering injury if                           de la Pointe Rouge SA (')
      the result prescribed by the directive entails the grant to      (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lack ofjurisdiction of
      individuals of rights whose content is identifiable and a                                Court ofJustice)
      causal link exists between the breach of the State 's                                      ( 96/C 354/23 )
      obligation and the loss and damage suffered.
                                                                                       (Language of the case: French)
2 . The result prescribed by Article 7 of Council Directive
      90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel,
      package holidays and package tours entails the grant to          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
      package travellers of rights guaranteeing a refund of                     published in the European Court Reports)
      money paid over and their repatriation in the event of
      the organizer 's insolvency; the content of those rights is
      sufficiently identifiable.                                       In Case C-95 /96 : reference under Article 177 of the EC
                                                                       Treaty by the Tribunal de Commerce [ Commercial Court],
                                                                       Marseille ( France ) for a preliminary ruling in the case
3 . In order to comply with Article 9 of Directive                     pending before that court between URSSAF ( Union de
      90/314/EEC, the Member State should have adopted,                Recouvrement des         Cotisations  de  Securite    Sociale   et
      within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary         d'Allocations     Familiales )    des Bouches-du-Rhone        and
      to ensure that, as from 1 January 1993 , individuals             Clinique de la Pointe Rouge SA on the question whether it is
      would have effective protection against the risk of the          possible to request the opening of proceedings for
    ' insolvency of the organizer and/'or retailer party to the        redressement judiciaire ( judicial settlement ) in respect of a
      contract.                                                        defendant who has been acquitted , where the damage
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 11 . 96        1 EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 354/ 13
suffered as a result of his wrongful imprisonment has not yet                           ORDER OF THE COURT
been made good — the Court (Third Chamber), composed                                         ( Fourth Chamber )
of J. -P. Puissochet, President of Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida ( Rapporteur) and C. Gulmann, Judges; A. Pergola ,                                     of 11 July 1996
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on               in Case C-325 /94 P: An Taisce — The National Trust for
12 June 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :            Ireland and World Wide Fund for Nature UK ( WWF ) v.
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
The Court manifestly has no jurisdiction to reply to the              (Appeal — Actionable decision — Appeal clearly
question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de                                       unfounded)
Commerce, Marseille, by judgment of 1 March 1996.                                                ( 96/C 354/25 )
(') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .                                                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-325/94 P : An Taisce — The National Trust for
                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                      Ireland and World Wide Fund for Nature UK ( WWF )
                        ( Third Chamber )                             (represented by George Berrisch ) — appeal against the
                         of 12 June 1996                              judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ( Second Chamber ) of 23 September 1994 in
in Case C-96/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the         Case T-461 /93 between An Taisce and WWF UK and the
Tribunal de Commerce de Marseille ): URSSAF ( Union de                Commission [ 1994] ECR 11-733 , seeking to have that
Recouvrement des Cotisations de Sécurité Sociale et
                                                                      judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
d'Allocations Familiales ) des Bouches-du-Rhône v. Clinique           the Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
                           Florens SA (M                              Carmel O'Reilly and Marc van der Woude ) — the Court
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lack ofjurisdiction of          ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris , President
                         Court ofJustice)                             of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm
                           ( 96/C 354/24 )                             ( Rapporteur ), Judges; A. La Pergola , Advocate-General ; R.
                                                                      Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 11 July 1996 in
                                                                      which it :
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       1 . dismisses the appeal;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      2 . orders the appellants to pay the costs .
In Case C - 95/96 : reference under Article 177 of the EC
                                                                       (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
Treaty by the Tribunal de Commerce [Commercial Court],
Marseille ( France ) for a preliminary ruling in the case
pending before that court between URSSAF ( Union de
Recouvrement des Cotisations de Sécurité Sociale et
d' Allocations Familiales )       des Bouches-du-Rhone and
Clinique Florens SA on the question whether it is possible to
request the opening of proceedings for redressement                                     ORDER OF THE COURT
judiciaire ( judicial settlement) involving a person who has
                                                                                                (First Chamber )
been charged with and acquitted of a criminal offence,
where the damage suffered as a result of his wrongful                                      of 17 September 1996
 imprisonment has not yet been made good — the Court                   in Case C-19/95 P: San Marco Impex Italiana Sri v.
 ( Third Chamber), composed ofJ. -P. Puissochet, President of                 Commission of the European Communities ( J )
 Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ) and C.
 Gulmann, Judges; A. La Pergola , Advocate-General; R.                  (Appeal — Public work contract — Article 178 and the
 Grass, Registrar, made an order on 12 June 1996 , the                        second paragraph of Article 215 of the Teaty)
 operative part of which is as follows :                                                          ( 96/C 354/26 )
 The Court manifestly has no jurisdiction to reply to the                             (Language of the case: English)
 question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
 Commerce, Marseille, by judgment of 1 March 1996 .                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
 (') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                        In Case C-19/95 : San Marco Impex Italiana Sri ( represented
                                                                        by Lucette Defalque ) — appeal for the annulment of the