Package Travel Directive, Article 14

The consumer is entitled to compensation for non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 1/3 of the price of the package trip when: the tour operator has created confusion about the destination of the trip, the accommodation does not meet the description in the ads, and the promised guide is not professionally trained and does not accompany tourists throughout the trip.

A contract for a package tourist trip in the Republic of Cyprus worth BGN 1,853  (for two tourists) was concluded between consumers  (a family)  and a tour operator. Shortly before leaving, consumers found that the holiday destination was not Cyprus but in fact the Republic of Northern Cyprus. They were misled by the incorrect name of the destination in the brochures. When they learned about the exact location of the destination, the deadlines for cancelling the trip had already expired. They were also misled about the accommodation, which was announced as 4- and 5-star top hotels in top locations near transport communications. In fact, some of the nights were in bungalows, which were in poor condition. The accommodation was generally remote from the settlements and there were no good transport links. The guide was an emigrant from Bulgaria who spoke little Bulgarian, had no professional training, was unable to tell them anything about the sights, and for the last two days of the trip he was not with the group at all, as he had another job. The consumers claim compensation in the amount of 1600 BGN  (almost 90% of the price of the trip) for the created discomfort from the shortcomings in the organisation, from accommodation in sites with quality and condition far from that stated by the tour operator, and from the lack of an adequate tour guide service information about the visited sites.

What is the fair amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage to the tourist when they have been misled about the destination of the trip and when the accommodation does not correspond to that advertised, and when the promised tour guide service is not at the required professional level, and in some of the days missing altogether?

The Court accepted as proven the plaintiff's alleged poor performance of the package travel contract by the tour operator. The Court noted that the main reason for the confusion about the destination was the lack of initial information and the fact that the contract was in small print, which prevented tourists from reading its contents carefully.

The Court also held that the quality and location of the accommodation did not correspond to what had been agreed and promised, and that the guide, although formally licensed, had not provided an adequate tour guide service and had not been available to the group at all in the last two days, which  created significant inconvenience. The Court held that the non-pecuniary damage thus caused to the applicant should be awarded in the form of compensation amounting to 1/3 of the value of the trip and dismissed the claim for the remainder of the amount. The Court does not accept the claim of the plaintiff that according to art. 91, para. 5 of the Tourism Act, the compensation for the caused damages cannot be lower than three times the amount of the price of the tourist package. The Court clarified that the norm of art. 91, para. 5 of the Tourism Act regulates the possibility in the contract for tourist travel to agree on an upper limit of the responsibility of the tour operator, which is missing in the case under consideration. The contract and the law do not provide for a minimum limit of the tour operator's liability, which would oblige the Court not to determine compensation below this amount.

Пълен текст: Пълен текст

Няма налични резултати

Няма налични резултати

The District Court Burgas upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance and awarded the plaintiff compensation for non-pecuniary damage amounting to 1/3 of the value of the trip, dismissing the claim for the difference up to the amount claimed in the application.