Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

MALTA | JACQUELINE TANTI-DOUGALL 1041 A similar case, but with different interpretation could be seen in: Alfred and Josephine Zarb versus MondialTravel Agency, decided on 30 January 2009 by the Civil Court of Appeal (one Judge) from the Consumer Claims Tribunal. In total there were four cases in connection with the same complaint. Each of the four couples requested a refund on the package tour that they had booked with the defendant company for € 1,397.62, representing a partial sum from the total sum of € 4,474 paid for a cruise of 12 days on DCL Dream for a ScandinavianandBalticCapitals tour.Themainattractionwas that the chimney of the cruise liner would descend when passing through Kiel Canal. On 9 August 2007, the plaintiffs went to the airport in order to catch a flight to Gatwick (UK), but were informed that there was a delay in the flight and that there would not be enough time to go toDover and board the cruise liner thereat as originally scheduled. Consequently, they were informed that they had to take the flight the following day to Germany and board the cruise liner from there. This meant that the plaintiffs lost one day and one night from the cruise and also the main attraction above-mentioned. The defendant company noted that it was not the fault of the travel agency for the delay, and had no control over the airline. The Consumers’ Tribunal, after taking into consideration all the facts, and specifically, that the plaintiffs were already at the airport, as they were requested, awarded the plaintiffs € 600 each in the four cases. The defendant company appealed the four cases before the First Hall Civil Court (Appeals Court), stipulating that the travel agent was not at fault that the flight was delayed and no alternative flights could be arranged instead. They even quoted Article 1134 (b) of the Civil Code where the: “The debtor shall not be liable for damages if he was prevented from giving or doing the thing he undertook to give or to do, or if he did the thing he was forbidden to do, in consequence of an irresistible force or a fortuitous event.” 27 . Consequently, the travel agency argued that it was unable to fulfil its obligations due to a fortuitous happening, caused by an unpredictable event, which was extraneous to and independent and autonomous from its operations. The Court of Appeal quoted: Article 1125 of the Civil Code which stipulates that: 27 The author opines that this article reflects the spirit of “ unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances ” found in the definitions of the New Package Travel Directive.