Съдебна практика

  • Данни за случая
    • Национален идентификатор: Appellative Court Sofia, Judgement 260125/2020
    • Държава-членка: България
    • Общоприето наименование:N/A
    • Вид решение: Съдебно решение в процес на обжалване
    • Дата на решението: 21/09/2020
    • Съд: Софийски апелативен съд
    • Заглавие:
    • Ищец:
    • Ответник:
    • Ключови думи: package travel
  • Членове от директивата
    Package Travel Directive, Article 12
  • Уводна бележка

    The presence of a warning from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the increase of the level of the criminogenic situation in the country of travel entitles the consumer to unilaterally terminate the package travel contract without penalty.

  • Факти

    A contract for a package tourist trip in Brazil and Argentina has been concluded between a consumer and a tour operator. At the time of concluding the contract, due to the presence of gangster skirmishes and clashes of gangsters with law enforcement, the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a warning to avoid travelling to Brazil, as the risk index is level 2 "Caution (find out in detail about the current situation in the country)”. After concluding the contract, the index was raised to level 3 "Increased level of risk (recommendation not to travel to certain regions of the country, unless necessary)." For this reason, the consumer unilaterally terminates the contract. The tour operator refused to return the advance payment received, claiming that it withheld the same as a penalty for unilaterally withdrawing from the contract between the 59th and 30th day before departure.

    The consumer files a claim for a refund of the price paid in advance for the trip.

  • Правен въпрос

    Is the increase of the risk index in the country of travel after the conclusion of the contract an objective reason for termination of the contract for package tourist travel, in case the parties knew that there were problems in this country when concluding the contract?

  • Решение

    The Court of Appeal considers that in the stated fact there is a withdrawal from the contract due to objective reasons - increased level of risk in the country of travel, which did not exist at the time of the contract and which the parties could not foresee when concluding the contract. In this case, it is irrelevant that at the time of the conclusion of the contract there was a declared level of risk for travel in the host country, as it was lower, and the parties could not predict that before departure it will increase. The existence of a risk due to an increased criminogenic situation in the final destination is an objective fact, due to which the penalty provided for in the contract in case of refusal of travel by the consumer is not due. This penalty would be due only in the event of withdrawal from the contract for reasons related to the consumer himself.

    URL: https://legalacts.justice.bg/Search/GetActContentByActId?actId=tW2IXsjFJYY%3D

    Пълен текст: Пълен текст

  • Свързани случаи

    Няма налични резултати

  • Правна литература

    Няма налични резултати

  • Резултат

    The Sofia Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which ordered the tour operator to reimburse the consumer the price paid in advance for the tourist trip.