Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

MALTA | JACQUELINE TANTI-DOUGALL 1039 (Inferior Jurisdiction), on 21 March 2016, whereby the plaintiffs had requested in the Consumer Claims Tribunal to compensate them with the sum of € 900 as part of a greater sumwhich they had paid for a cruise in August 2014, after the Captain did not allow them to disembark in Monaco which was the main attraction. The defendant Company rebutted this claim by stating that it was not its fault that the plaintiffs were not allowed to disembark, as it was the Captain’s decision due to bad weather. However, the Tribunal awarded them the full sum of € 900. The defendants appealed stating that the Company had no control over the Captain’s command, and also, the actual amount paid for the excursion was just € 40. The Appeals Court made reference to the actual Package Travel Regulations quoting from Regulation 15 (1), which in the new Package Regulations is Article 12 (1), and since the package was purchased directly from the defendants, they were in terms of the law, responsible. Moreover, the Appeals Court confirmed the Tribunal’s decisions whereby the € 450 that was requested by each of the plaintiff as moral damages for “ any pain, distress, anxiety and inconvenience”, was more than justified. Indeed, the plaintiffs passed through such a bad experience where the guide accompanying them on the cruise did not assist them much, and even worse, when other passengers on the ship were in fact allowed to disembark from the ship to visit Monaco. Another case George Winston Schembri versus SMS Mondial, decided by the Consumer Claims Tribunal on 11 January 2016. This concerned a brochure (today it is referred to as standard information which is to be provided on “a durable medium”) which stipulated that the dates of the cruise that the plaintiffs booked had to take place between 2 August 2015 and 14 August 2015. The brochure stated that the plaintiff and his wife had a one night stay in Barcelona (Spain). The total cost of the travel package was € 3,056. The brochure stated that it was “ 10 nights all-inclusive on Zenith ” (Zenith being the Cruise liner). As the departure date on the brochure indicated 2 August 2015, the plaintiffs complained to the travel agent, since they were led to believe that it was 10 nights on the cruise and one night in Barcelona, and not 9 nights on the cruise and one night in Barcelona. The travel agency insisted that the tour had to start on the 2 August as advertised in the brochure, so much so that they had to be at the airport at 11:30 pm. The couple went to the airport at the allocated time, but there was a delay in the flight and the aircraft left at 4 am on 3 August 2015. They arrived at the hotel in Barcelona at 7:00 am and could not sleep but instead opted to go to the paid excursion.