Judikatura

  • Podrobnosti případu
    • Národní identifikační číslo: Supreme Court, Judgement 33 Cdo 1809/2020
    • členský stát: Česko
    • Obecný název:N/A
    • Typ rozhodnutí: Rozhodnutí Nejvyššího soudu
    • Datum vydání rozhodnutí: 20/07/2021
    • Soud: Nejvyšší soud
    • Předmět:
    • Žalobce:
    • Žalovaný:
    • Klíčová slova: Breach of contract, travel contract, travel agency
  • Články směrnice
    Package Travel Directive, Article 13 Package Travel Directive, Article 14
  • Úvodní poznámka

    ECLI:CZ:NS:2021:33.CDO.1809.2020.1

    The court must address the question of the existence of grounds for refusing the offered alternative rooms, because otherwise the conclusion of the Court of Appeal would be unreviewable for lack of reasons and findings of fact.

  • Skutkový stav

    The consumer has concluded a trip contract with the travel agency. However, immediately upon arrival at the hotel, the consumer complained about the size of the room, the quality of the extra bed and the lack of sea views. The consumer was offered a different room the next day - with a sea view, but the consumer refused, saying that it was smaller. The Court of First Instance accepted only a right to a refund of the sea view supplement; a discount on the price of the trip for a smaller room and the quality of the extra bed was refused. The court further stated that it was not the applicant's obligation to accept the offer of smaller rooms as a substitute offer which "also did not meet the applicant's requirements under the travel contract". However, the Supreme Court considers that the applicant's obligation to accept smaller rooms which did not meet its requirements under the travel contract is a legal conclusion without any assessment of the legally relevant findings of fact.

  • Právní otázky

    Should the court address the question whether or not the rooms were in accordance with the size of the purchase contract and thus properly resolve the question whether the reasons for the consumer's refusal to offer replacement rooms were justified?

  • Rozhodnutí

    The Supreme Court ruled that it is the obligation of the judges of the lower courts to assess the existence of grounds for refusing the offered alternative rooms, and not only state that the applicant was not required to accept the smaller.

    URL: https://nsoud.cz/Judikatura/judikatura_ns.nsf/WebSearch/7CF7C88C2EA352B8C125876D0018A049?openDocument&Highlight=0

    Úplné znění: Úplné znění

  • Související případy

    Výsledky nejsou k dispozici.

  • Právní nauka

    Výsledky nejsou k dispozici.

  • Výsledek

    The Supreme Court declared the judgement of the Court of Appeal incorrect and therefore annulled it and returned the case to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings to this extent.