Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

1040 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE However, being very tired, they slept on the coach and they did not enjoy the excursion. At 6:00 pm they embarked on the ship. The plaintiff filed the complaint because the brochure stipulated that they had to leave on 2 August 2015, when in fact it should have been 3 August and so he and his wife lost a night from the paid package. The Tribunal noted that the defendant travel agent should have been more precise in the advert, since although they had to meet on the 2 August, and the hotel was booked inBarcelona for the night between the 2 and 3 August 2015, yet, the flight was actually on the 3 August. The Tribunal highlighted the fact that the plaintiffs had to wait at the airport since the aircraft was delayed by two hours from the scheduled flight, and this caused the plaintiffs to arrive late at the hotel, so much so that it was already time for breakfast. The adjudicator further noted that the flight delay was not the travel agent’s fault. However, theTribunal commented that the fact that the time of the meeting at the airport was at 11:30 pm, the plaintiffs couldhave easily supposed that the flight was scheduled for the 3 August 2015. Furthermore, the plaintiffs could have also pre-supposed that they would arrive quite late and that they would be tired the next day, and consequently, should not have been surprised at all. As the cruise went exactly as scheduled, the plaintiffs’ request was for the one night that they paid for extra, and so the plaintiffs requested the amount of € 259.80 which was the sum divided by 10 nights. The Tribunal concluded that the travel agency could not be blamed for the fact that the plaintiffs were tired, nor with regard to the flight delay, but the only thing that the agency did incorrect was to advertise that the departure date was on the 2 August 2015, when instead it was on the 3 August 2015. Since the plaintiffs requested the € 70 refund for the Barcelona excursion, because they had slept on the excursion, the Tribunal noted that they could have chosen not to go since they were tired. Instead they chose to go, and the fact that they fell asleep, was not the agency’s fault. The Tribunal noted that plaintiffs claimed € 90 for moral damages, which the Tribunal acceded to due to the misleading information on the brochure, and the plaintiffs were justified in asking for this, and so the Tribunal awarded € 90 as compensation for incorrectly declaring the time of departure which caused an inconvenience for the plaintiff.