Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: C30416516
    • Member State: Latvia
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Court decision, first degree
    • Decision date: 03/10/2016
    • Court: District Court of Civil Cases (Gulbene)
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: unknown plaintiffs
    • Defendant: SIA "Ceļojumu bode"
    • Keywords: internet, organizer, package travel, retailer, terms and conditions
  • Directive Articles
    Package Travel Directive, Article 2, 2. Package Travel Directive, Article 2, 3. Package Travel Directive, ANNEX, (g)
  • Headnote
    The status of an undertaking as an organizer or a retailer (according to the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 90/313/EEC) can be determined based on what is provided in the Terms of Use of the undertaking’s website, especially where consumers have been acquainted with the Terms of Use.
  • Facts
    The plaintiffs together purchased a package travel in the defendant’s online shop. After a while the defendant refunded the plaintiffs’ money and cancelled the travel. Due to this, the plaintiffs requested remedies from the defendant for the failure to perform the contract.

    The defendant refused to compensate the plaintiffs and claimed that it is not an organizer, but merely a retailer and thus not liable for non-performance of the contract.

    In reality, the defendant was registered in the national registers as both an organizer and a retailer within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 90/314/EEC.

    At the same time, the Terms of Use of the defendant’s website clearly indicated that the defendant was acting as a retailer. Under the given circumstances, the plaintiffs brought a claim before the court against the defendant for recovery of damages.
  • Legal issue
    The court considered that consumers have an obligation to act diligently and acquire all the available information about a service they are purchasing. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiffs were aware of Terms of Use of the defendant’s website which clearly indicated that the defendant acts as a retailer.

    Thus, despite the defendant being registered also as an organizer, the court relied on the Terms of Use in finding that the defendant is a retailer. Since the law prescribed liability for the failure to perform contracts only to organizers, the court found that the defendant cannot be held liable.
  • Decision

    Can an undertaking’s status as an organizer or a retailer (according to the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 90/313/EEC) be determined based on what is stated in the Terms of Use of the undertaking’s website?

    URL: https://manas.tiesas.lv/eTiesasMvc/nolemumi/pdf/289165.pdf

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.