Portalul european e-justiție - Case Law
Închide

VERSIUNEA BETA A PORTALULUI ESTE ACUM DISPONIBILĂ!

Accesați versiunea BETA a portalului european e-justiție și spuneți-ne cum vi se pare!

 
 

Cale de navigare


menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Case Details

Case Details
National ID Decision no. 336/2016
Statul membru România
Common Name link
Decision type Court decision in appeal
Decision date 13/06/2016
Instanţa Curtea de apel Constanta
Obiect
Reclamantul Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration - Romatsa
Pârâtul Unknown
Cuvinte-cheie package travel, travel

Package Travel Directive, RECITALS Package Travel Directive, Article 2, 4.

The "tourist" (as such term is defined in art. 3 of Ordinance no. 107/1999) is the only person entitled to request the reimbursement of the amount paid from the travel agency , after having withdrawn from the travel package agreement, irrespective of whether they purchased the package itself or it was bought for them by a third party. Said third party does not qualify as a "tourist" under Ordinance no. 107/1999 and, therefore, cannot exercise the above right(s).
The plaintiff purchased packages for the benefit of his employees from the defendant. Subsequently, some of the employees decided to withdraw from the travel package agreements and were reimbursed for the sums paid by the plaintiff, minus an amount retained as commission. The plaintiff claimed that it is itself entitled to be reimbursed for the above sums by the defendant.
Is a party who has purchased a package for the benefit of another party (the tourist) entitled to reimbursement of the amount paid from the seller, in case the tourist has withdrawn from the agreement?
The Court considered that, pursuant to art. 3 of Ordinance no. 107/1999, a "tourist" is either (a) the natural person who purchased he package travel or (b) the natural person for whom the package was purchased, or to whom the package was assigned.

Consequently, the court ruled, only the employees of the plaintiff qualify as "tourists", and not the plaintiff itself. Therefore, according to art. 17 of Ordinance no. 107/1999, the defendant is not obliged to pay back the sums to the plaintiff, but only to the plaintiff's employees.
Full Text: Full Text

No results available

No results available

Plaintiff's appeal request was rejected.