European e-Justice Portal - Case Law
Close

BETA VERSION OF THE PORTAL IS NOW AVAILABLE!

Visit the BETA version of the European e-Justice Portal and give us feedback of your experience!

 
 

Navigation path


menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Case Details

Case Details
National ID 10757/08
Member State Cyprus
Common Name link
Decision type Court decision, first degree
Decision date 30/09/2009
Court District Court of Limassol
Subject
Plaintiff Limassol Police Chief
Defendant Love Island Travel & Tours Ltd and Alexandros Papa
Keywords consumer, organizer, package travel, travel

Package Travel Directive, link

(1) The information, included in an information material concerning a package travel, that does not refer to intermediate stops until the arrival in the destination city, is considered to be misleading information under article 3 (1) of the Package Travel Directive 90/314/EEC (implemented into national law by article 4(1) of The Package Travel, Holidays and Tours Law (L.51(I)/1998).

(2) The omission to indicate in a brochure concerning a package travel, any intermediate stops until the arrival in the destination city, contravenes article 3(2)(a) of the Package Travel Directive 90/314/EEC (implemented into national law by article 5(1) – Annex, Table I (1) of The Package Travel, Holidays and Tours Law (L.51(I)/1998)).
On or about May 2007, the plaintiff visited the travel agency of the defendants and received a brochure and a price-list in order to get informed about the defendant’s travel packages. During the summer of 2007, the plaintiff, together with her family, decided to travel to Disneyland - Paris, through the defendant’s travel agency. According to the information indicated in the brochure she received in May 2007, the round trip flights from Larnaca to Paris and from Paris to Larnaca were both “direct flights” and in particular indicated in the brochure as Larnaca – Paris – Larnaca. The plaintiff made reservations and one day before the flight (16.7.2007) she visited the offices of the defendant, she paid the price for five (5) Larnaca – Paris – Larnaca round trip tickets and received a written schedule with information on the package travel she paid. The plaintiff noticed that, on the written schedule she just received, there was an indication that the flight was going to last 5 hours and 30 minutes (a direct flight from Larnaca to Paris is approximately 4 hours). The plaintiff immediately asked the defendant’s employee why the flight will take so long, since when buying the tickets, she had in her mind that the flight was going to be a “direct flight” and if any intermediate stops applied she considered it obvious that she should get informed accordingly. The defendant’s employee reassured her that she should not worry about it as the time on the schedule referred to the time difference between the two countries. On the day of the flight (17.7.2007), the plaintiff, while waiting at the gate for boarding, she realized, for the first time, that the flight was going to have an intermediate stop in Salonica, Greece. Indeed, the flight had an intermediate stop in Salonica for about 1 hour and 30 minutes. During the intermediate stop the passengers, including the plaintiff and her family, remained seated in the airplane, new passengers were boarded, the airplane got refueled and they left for Paris. The same intermediate stop took place during the return flight Paris- Larnaca. The plaintiff filed a complaint.

The defendants alleged that in November 2006 the airline company made available to the defendants certain seats for the particular flight that at the time was scheduled by the airline company to be a “direct flight”. At a later stage the airline company decided to change those “direct flights” to flights with an intermediate stop in Salonica. The change was made in November 2006, before the plaintiff made her reservations and paid for the tickets. The change of the flight was the reason why the defendants indicated on the price-list that the price was a “special offer”, without, however, explaining on the brochure that such “special offer” related to a flight with an intermediate stop. The defendants, following the change to the flight, never re-printed the brochure nor attached any additional document to the brochure informing the consumers that the flight was changed from a “direct flight” to a flight with an intermediate stop.
The court commented that the defendants could attach to the brochure a document clarifying that the flight changed from "direct flight" to a flight with an intermediate stop or they could simply clarify the matter next to the “special offer” in the price-list or they could at least clarify the matter in the written schedule provided with the purchase of the tickets.

The court decided that:
(1) the defendants violated article 3 (1) of Directive 90/314/EEC (implemented into national law by article 4(1) of The Package Travel, Holidays and Tours Law (L.51(I)/1998) because they provided the plaintiff with information material concerning a package travel which contained substantially inaccurate information or misleading information or information that might have lead to a consumer being misled. The information was obviously inaccurate on the one hand, and misleading on the other hand; any reasonable consumer would have perceived that the flight was a “direct flight” without any intermediate stops, since no information was provided thereof; and

(2) the defendants violated article 3(2)(a) of Directive 90/314/EEC (implemented into national law by article 5(1) – Annex, Table I (1) of The Package Travel, Holidays and Tours Law (L.51(I)/1998)). In particular, according to Annex, Table I (1), among the information to be provided with a brochure is the information of “any intermediate stops until the arrival in the destination city”. Not only the brochure did not indicate the intermediate stop in Salonica but indicated that the flight was a “direct flight”.
(1) Is the information, included in an information material concerning a package travel, that does not refer to intermediate stops until the arrival in the destination city, considered to be misleading information under article 3 (1) of the Package Travel Directive 90/314/EEC (implemented into national law by article 4(1) of The Package Travel, Holidays and Tours Law (L.51(I)/1998)?

(2) Does the omission to indicate in a brochure concerning a package travel, any intermediate stops until the arrival in the destination city, contravene article 3(2)(a) of the Package Travel Directive 90/314/EEC (implemented into national law by article 5(1) – Annex, Table I (1) of The Package Travel, Holidays and Tours Law (L.51(I)/1998))?
Full Text: Full Text
Member State National ID Common Name Directive Articles Decision Date
Cyprus 5652/04 link Package Travel Directive, Article 3, 1. 16/01/2009

No results available

The defendants were found guilty.