• Detalii privind cazul
    • ID național: Decision no. 336/2016
    • Statul membru: România
    • Denumire comună:N/A
    • Tipul de decizie: Decizie a Curții care face obiectul unui recurs
    • Data deciziei: 13/06/2016
    • Instanţa: Curtea de apel Constanta
    • Obiect:
    • Reclamantul: Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration - Romatsa
    • Pârâtul: Unknown
    • Cuvinte-cheie: package travel, travel
  • Articole din directivă
    Package Travel Directive, RECITALS Package Travel Directive, Article 2, 4.
  • Notă preliminară
    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is the only person entitled to request the reimbursement of the amount paid from the travel agency , after having withdrawn from the travel package agreement, irrespective of whether they purchased the package itself or it was bought for them by a third party.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).
  • Fapte
    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.
  • Chestiune juridică
    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of another party (the tourist) entitled to reimbursement of the amount paid from the seller, in case the tourist has withdrawn from the agreement?
  • Hotărârea

    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.

    Text integral: Text integral

  • Cazuri conexe

    Nu există rezultate disponibile

  • Doctrină

    Nu există rezultate disponibile

  • Rezultat
    Plaintiff's appeal request was rejected.