If you go on a trip, you can experience something. And at the beginning of the corona pandemic, it was also rather negative. For example, closed beaches, curfews and pool bans. Even if a tour operator thinks they are refusing a price reduction with reference to a general risk to life, the ECJ sees it differently.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ, Case C-396/21) has ruled that travelers whose package tour has been affected by measures to combat the Covid 19 pandemic may be entitled to a reduction in the price of the tour. Because the corresponding package travel directive provides for no-fault liability on the part of the tour operator.

How was the case?

Two travelers had booked a two-week package tour to Gran Canaria from March 13, 2020 with a German tour operator. They ask for a price reduction of 70 percent due to the restrictions imposed on this island on March 15, 2020 to combat the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic and their early return.

As a result of the measures, the beaches were closed and a curfew was imposed so that travelers were only allowed to leave their hotel rooms to eat. Access to pools and loungers has been banned and the animation program has been suspended. On March 18, the two travelers were told to be ready to leave the island at any time, and two days later they had to return to Germany.

The tour operator refused them the requested price reduction on the grounds that he was not responsible for such a “general life risk”. The two travelers then sued him, among other things, before the Munich Regional Court, which asked the ECJ to interpret the Package Travel Directive.

The judgment

With today’s judgment, the Court of Justice answers that a traveler is entitled to a reduction in the price of his package holiday. The cause of the non-conformity and in particular its imputability to the tour operator is irrelevant, since the directive provides for strict liability of the tour operator with regard to the claim for a price reduction.

The latter is only exempt from this if he can prove that the breach of contract was due to the travelers themselves. But that wasn’t the case here. The Court also clarified that the obligations of the organizer arising from the package travel contract include not only those expressly agreed in the contract, but also those related thereto and arising from the objective of that contract.

The Munich District Court is now obliged to implement the case law of the ECJ judgment in its final judgment.