Tez Tour hurts vacationers a lot from coronavirus

The court ruled in a case against Tez Tour that the tour operator asked judges to reverse a decision of the State Service for the Protection of Consumer Rights (SCRPA) that ordered Tez Tour to reimburse tourists for a missed trip.

At the time, Tez Tour was trying to prove that tourists had to get their money back from the Megaturas travel agency, where they had bought a vacation trip. Tez Tour explained that he had returned the money to Megatur, but that the agency, which sold package tours and airline tickets, had its license revoked last spring, its cooperation with the tour operators was terminated and a procedure of bankruptcy in November.

According to the case data, at the end of January last year, Mindaugas G. de Panevėžys bought a tourist trip to the Italian town of Val di Fassa from him and his companion from the tour operator Tez Tour, through the sales agency of Mega trips. The trip was supposed to take place in early March, but was interrupted by force majeure due to the rapid spread of the COVID-19 virus in the northern region of Italy.

The resident of Panevėžys had paid 1,999 euros for this trip, the package included flights by plane, transfer to and from the hotel, accommodation and meals in a three-star hotel and the services of a representative of the tour operator.

If the trip did not take place, the Panevėžys resident who requested it applied to the tour operator, asking him to return the money paid, and without receiving a favorable decision, to SCRPA. It decided that Tez Tour should return the money paid to Mindaugas G., because the Megaturas agency, which sold the travel package, acted as a travel agent, so the obligation to return the money for the lost organized trip does not fall on the intermediary, but with the tour operator.

Although Tez Tour claimed to have transferred money to Megatura for the missed trip, this, according to SCRPA, does not remove the tour operator’s obligation to return the money to the tourist for the missed trip.

“The Civil Code stipulates that the money for the lost organized trip is returned by the tour operator,” the representatives of the consumer protection service highlighted the decision.

But Tez Tour refused to directly pay Mindaugas G., who did not go on a vacation trip, and the SCRPA appealed the decision in court.

In their complaint, the tour operator’s lawyers indicated that Mindaugas G. had entered into the contract for the organized tourist trip through the travel sales agency Megaturas, for which they made the payments not to the Tez Tour account, but to the account of Megaturas. .

“Refunds to tourists are made through travel agents,” Tez Tour’s lawyers said. “The tour operator fulfilled its obligation with the travel agency in its entirety, that is, it was reimbursed all the money received from Megaturo in compliance with counter-obligations.”

According to the tour operator, once the funds were paid, Tez Tour’s monetary obligation with Megaturo and the tourist ended, so the tourist unreasonably demands to renounce it directly.

But such a position of the tour operator was not accepted by the district court, which rejected the complaint and confirmed the decision made by the SCRPA. Such a decision did not satisfy Tez Tour, which ordered the court to pay Mindaugas G. not only EUR 1,999 for the failed trip, but also EUR 1,500 for the costs incurred.

The tour operator, who appealed the district court’s decision, stated that “the court distanced itself from the systematic application of legal norms and did not examine the case in an incomplete and incomplete manner.”

“A judicial decision must be reasoned and legitimate; the court must issue a duly reasoned decision, that is, base it on factual and legal arguments ”, – Tez Tour explained that the district court’s arguments.

“When buying a trip through a travel agent, the tourist requests the chosen travel agent, concludes a contract on behalf of the travel agent, transfers the money for the trip not to the tour operator, but to the travel agent himself, who pay the difference with the tour operator ”, the lawyers of Tez Tour. Mindaugas G. concluded the contract for the organized trip through a travel sales agent, the payments for the trip were made through the travel agency” Megaturas ” , so the reimbursement is also made through this agency. “

According to the tour operator, Megaturas has confirmed that Tez Tour has returned the money for the lost trip, so this agency must settle accounts with Mindaugas G, who bought the travel package.

“It is not the tour operators but Megatura, who has the money paid, who is obliged to return the amount paid to Mindaga G.”, said Tez Tour in a complaint, both obligations derived from it are carried out through a sales agent of trips.

Mindaugas G. disagreed with this position, noting that the tour operator has the right to appeal to the currently bankrupt company Megaturas for the refund of the money paid.

“The obligation to return the money for the lost package is not Megaturas, but the tour operator Tez Tour. According to Mindaugas G., the tour operator and the agency are subject to a commercial brokerage agreement.

This position was shared by the three-judge panel that heard the case on appeal. According to the court, Megaturas acted as a travel sales agent, acting on the basis of a brokerage agreement between Tez Tour and Megaturo.

“The tour operator has the obligation to return the money paid to Mindaugas G. for the trip,” the court declared in a decision that took effect immediately after the announcement. – The fact that Tez Tour and Megaturas have made compensation does not exempt the tour operator from the obligation to reimburse the tourist for the amount paid under the contract. In this case, the tourist will not be responsible for the relationship between the tour operator and the travel agency derived from the agency contract.

According to the court, Tez Tour has recourse rights against the travel agency Megaturas.

“ The grounds of the appeal do not justify the conclusion that the Court of First Instance incorrectly applied the substantive rules governing the civil liability of the tour operator for the reimbursement of tourist contributions in the event of travel, as well as the procedural rules on evidence and evidence, when examining the dispute and assessing the relevant circumstances for its resolution, the decision of the Court of First Instance to annul or modify the grounds for the appeal is unfounded, the applicant’s appeal must be dismissed and the contested judgment must be confirmed. ruled against Tez Tour.

It also ruled that the tour operator would be obliged to reimburse Mindaugas G. not only the costs of the procedure before the court of first instance (1.5 thousand euros), but also the appeal procedures, another 700 euros.