1 / 20

Recent Decisions of the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH)

Recent Decisions of the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH). Paper presented at the IFTTA Europe Workshop 2012, Rostock (Germany), Dr. Sandra Echtermeyer, Attorney , Berlin. Introduction

kyle
Download Presentation

Recent Decisions of the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RecentDecisionsofthe German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) Paper presentedatthe IFTTA Europe Workshop 2012, Rostock (Germany), Dr. Sandra Echtermeyer, Attorney, Berlin

  2. Introduction • Threeofthelatestdecisionsofthe German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) withregardtotravelcontractlaw: • 30.09.2010 AzXa ZR 130/08: „qualificationof a travelagentas an organizer“ • 28.10.2010 Az. Xa ZR 46/10: „liabilityof an organizerfortraindelay (rail & flypackages)“ • 02.11.2011 Az. X ZR 43/11: „clarificationofscopeofinsolvencyprotectionregardingpackages“

  3. BGH, Decisiondated 30.09.2010 Az. Xa ZR 130/08 Facts • Plaintiffhadbooked a combinationofairtravelandseacruiseandtwohotelnights in Jamaica • The combination was puttogetherindividuallyby a travelagentaccordingtotheplaintiff´srequest • Plaintiffsigned separate bookingsfortheflights, thecruiseandaccommodationwhileeverybookingmentionedthecompany (supplier/organizer) offeringtherespectiveserviceas well asthesinglepriceforit • Attheoutwardflight her luggage was leftbehindandonlydelivered after thecruise was finished • Sheclaimedforpricereduction, damages due to additional expensesbased on thedefectofthejourneyas well asforimmaterialdamage in the form ofdamagesforuselessspent time ofthepackage

  4. BGH, Decisiondated 30.09.2010 Az. Xa ZR 130/08 Travel Agent actingasorganizer ?

  5. BGH, Decisiondated 30.09.2010 Az. Xa ZR 130/08 GuidingPrinciples (ofthedecision) • Thereisneither a principlederivedfromexperiencenor a statutoryinterpretationruleaccordingtowhich a travelagentputtingtogethersingletravelservicesindividuallyasrequestedbythecustomeristoberegardedasorganizer • The travelagenttypicallyonlyactsas an agentwithouttakingresponsibilityforthe proper performancebythesuppliers • Onlyfromtheofferofseveraltravelserviceslinkedtoe.o. atthe same time andplaceattherequestoftheconsumerdoes not followthat a travelagenttakestheresponsibilityforthe proper performanceofthesingletravelserviceslike an organizer

  6. BGH, Decisiondated 30.09.2010 Az. Xa ZR 130/08 Reasons (ofthedecision) • Even thoughthe ECJ in Club-Tour v. Garrido (C-400/00)hadheldthattheterm „package“ includesholidaysorganisedbytravelagentsattherequestofand in accordancewiththespecificationsof a consumeror limited groupofconsumersthiswould not necessarilymeanthatthetravelagentassumesresonsibilityforthe proper performancebythesuppliers • Fromthe Garrido decisiononlyderivesthatbyputtingtogether a package a travelagentcan turn into an organizer (e.g. whensuppliersare not mentioned, but an inclusiveprice) but itdoesnotmeanthat he will alwaysbean organizer, irrespectiveoftheparticularcircumstances • Furthermore, asthePackageDirectiveprovidesthatthetravelagentcanexistbesidetheorganizeranddoesnot havetotakeresponsibilitylike an organizer, thereisnoneedtofile a referenceforpreliminaryrulingtothe ECJ regardingthequestionwhether a travelagentactsonlyas an agent in an individual case

  7. BGH, Decisiondated 30.09.2010 Az. Xa ZR 130/08 UnderlyingRules (ofthedecision) • Section 651a German Civil Code: • (1) By a package travel contract, a travel organiser is obliged to render for the traveller a complete set of travel services (travel package) for the traveller. The traveller is obliged to pay the travel organiser the agreed price for the travel package. • Article 2 of the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Directive: • For the purposes of this Directive: • 1. 'package' means the pre-arranged combination of not fewer than two of the following when sold or offered for sale at an inclusive price and when the service covers a period of more than twenty-four hours or includes overnight accommodation: • (a) transport; • (b) accommodation; • (c) other tourist services not ancillary to transport or accommodation and accounting for a significant proportion of the package. • The separate billing of various components of the same package shall not absolve the organizer or retailer from the obligations under this Directive; • 2. 'organizer' means the person who, other than occasionally, organizes packages and sells or offers them for sale, whether directly or through a retailer; • 3. 'retailer' means the person who sells or offers for sale the package put together by the organizer;… • 5. 'contract' means the agreement linking the consumer to the organizer and/or the retailer.

  8. BGH, Decisiondated 28.10.2010 Az. Xa ZR 46/10 Facts • Plaintiffhadbooked a packagewith „Meier´s Weltreisen“ (organizer), whichincludedairtransportfrom Düsseldorf totheDominicanRepublicas well ashotelaccommodationand all inclusiveboard • Plaintiffchose a rail ticket totheairportofferedby „Meier´s“ („Rail & Fly-Ticket“) promoted in thebrochureand in an informationleafletbeforethejourneyasavoiding„stress andtrafficjams“andashelping„tostarttheholiday relaxed byusingthecomfortableserviceofMeier´sincluded in thepackageprice“ • Furthermore, „Meier´s“ recommendedtochoose a trainconnectionwhicharrivesattheairportat least twohoursbeforescheduleddeparture • Plaintiff´sflight was scheduledfordepartureat 11.15 am whileshechose a trainwhich was supposedtoarriveattheairportat 09.08 am • However, due to a delayofthetrain, sheonlyreachedtheairportat 11.45 andmissed her flight • Afterhaving consulted „Meier´s“, shewenttoMunichandtook a flightfromtherethenextday • Back homesheclaimedforcompensationofthe additional costcausedbymissingtheflight

  9. BGH, Decisiondated 28.10.2010 Az. Xa ZR 46/10 Organizer liablefortraindelay („Rail & Fly“ package)?

  10. BGH, Decisiondated 28.10.2010 Az. Xa ZR 46/10 GuidingPrinciple (ofthedecision) • Bypromotingthetrainconnectiontotheairportandofferingthe same as additional serviceofitsownandaspartofthepackage, „Meier´s“ hadacceptedliabilityfortheaccurateoperationofthetrain

  11. BGH, Decisiondated 28.10.2010 Az. Xa ZR 46/10 Reasons (ofthedecision) • Based on thecircumstances in whichthedefendantorganizeracted, theconsumercouldonlyassumethattheorganizer was offeringthetransferbytrainasownserviceacceptingliabilityforthe proper performanceofthetrain • The descriptionofthe ticket, thepromotingascomfortableserviceby „Meier´s Weltreisen“ (showingtheadvantagescomparedtoothermeansoftransport) givingdetailedinstructionsfortheselectionofthetrainconnectionandthefact, thatthetransfer was included in thepriceforthepackageareindicationsfor a serviceofferedofitsown • Even thoughthechoiceof a particulartrainhadbeenuptotheplaintiff, there was nocontributorynegligence on behalf oftheplaintiffasshehadplanned her journeywith due careand in linewith „Meier´s“ instructions

  12. BGH, Decisiondated 28.10.2010 Az. Xa ZR 46/10 UnderlyingRule (ofthedecision) • Section 651c German Civl Code: • (1) The travel organiser is obliged to provide the travel package in such a way that it has the warranted characteristics and is not impaired by faults that cancel or reduce its value or its suitability for the customary use or the use assumed under the contract. • (2) If the travel package is not of this quality, then the traveller may demand relief. The travel organiser may refuse the relief if it requires disproportionate expense. • (3) If the travel organiser does not provide relief within a reasonable period of time set by the traveller, then the traveller may himself provide relief and demand reimbursement of the required expenses. A period of time need not be specified if the travel organiser refuses relief or if immediate relief is required by a particular interest of the traveller.

  13. BGH, Decisiondated 02.11.2011 Az. X ZR 43/11 Facts • Plaintiffshadbooked a cruiseatthebeginningof 2009 • After a guaranteecertificate (confirmingthattheplaintiffsarereimbursed in theeventofinsolvencyoftheorganizer) of an insurancecompanyhadbeenhanded out, theplaintiffspaidthepackagepricetotheorganizer • In thebeginningof August 2009 theorganizerinformedtheplaintiffsthatthepackage will not beperformed due tothemissingofthesufficientnumberofpersonshavingbookedthepackage • In thebeginningofDecember 2009 theorganizer was insolvent • The plaintiffsclaimedforthereimbursementofthepackageprice

  14. BGH, Decisiondated 02.11.2011 Az. X ZR 43/11 Repaymentofpackageprice in caseofcancellationbeforeinsolvency?

  15. BGH, Decisiondated 02.11.2011 Az. X ZR 43/11 GuidingPrinciple (ofthedecision) • The German provisionwithregardtotheinsolvencyprotectionhastobeinterpreted in accordancewith Art. 7 ofthePackageDirectiveas also coveringtherepaymentofthepackagepriceiftheorganizerhadcancelledthepackagebeforegoingbust

  16. BGH, Decisiondated 02.11.2011 Az. X ZR 43/11 Reasons (ofthedecision) • Itisthepurposeoftheabove-mentionedArticleoftheDirectivethattheconsumer will beprotectedagainstanyrisks in theeventofinsolvency • NeitherArticle 7 oftheDirectivenorthe German lawwouldrequire a causalconnectionbetweentheinsolvencyoftheorganizerandthecancellationofthepackage • In fact, itissufficient, that - followingtheinsolvency – theorganizeris not ableanymoretoreimbursethepackagepriceforthecancelledpackageand – naturally - is not ableanymoretoperformthepackage • In this sense, also thecontractsbetweentheorganizerandtheinsurancecompanyaretoberegarded, becausetheyrefertotheabove-mentionedprovisions • Due totheclearwordingoftheArticle 7 in thisregard, the BGH sawnoreasontofile a referencetothe ECJ

  17. BGH, Decisiondated 02.11.2011 Az. X ZR 43/11 UnderlyingRules (ofthedecision) • Section 651k German Civl Code: • (1) The travel organiser must guarantee that the traveller is reimbursed • 1. the price of the travel package paid to the extent that travel services fail to materialise due to insolvency or the commencement of insolvency proceedings relating to the assets of the travel organiser, and • 2. necessary expenses incurred by the traveller for return travel due to insolvency or the commencement of insolvency proceedings relating to the assets of the travel organiser. • The duties under sentence 1 may only be performed by the travel organiser • 1. by means of an insurance policy taken out with an insurance company authorised to conduct business operations within the area of application of this Code, or • 2. by the promise of payment of a banking institution authorised for business operations within the area of application of this Code. • (2) …

  18. BGH, Decisiondated 02.11.2011 Az. X ZR 43/11 UnderlyingRules (ofthedecision) • Section 651k German Civl Code: • (3) To discharge his duty under subsection (1), the travel organiser must provide the traveller with a direct claim on the customer finance guarantor and must evidence it by handing over a confirmation (guarantee certificate) issued by the customer finance guarantor or at its behest. … • (4) The travel organiser and the travel agent may only demand or accept payments towards the package price from the traveller prior to the end of the travel package if a guarantee certificate has been given to the traveller. …

  19. BGH, Decisiondated 02.11.2011 Az. X ZR 43/11 UnderlyingRules (ofthedecision) • Article 7 of the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Directive: • The organizer and/or retailer party to the contract shall provide sufficient evidence of security for the refund of money paid over and for the repatriation of the consumer in the event of insolvency.

  20. Summary • 30.09.2010 AzXa ZR 130/08: • doubtfulwhetherthere was noneedtofile a referenceforpreliminaryrulingtothe ECJ regardingthequestionwhether a travelagentactsonlyas an agent in an individual case • 28.10.2010 Az. Xa ZR 46/10: • in accordancewiththepreviousdecisionsofthecourt (in favourofconsumer) • 02.11.2011 Az. X ZR 43/11: • in accordancewith EU-Directiveanditspurpose (extensive insolvencyprotectionfortheconsumer)

More Related