Kharkiv court orders travel agency to refund 109,000 hryvnia for cancelled cruise

Court ruling in favour of client

The Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kharkiv issued a ruling in favour of a local resident who challenged the actions of the travel company "Cruise-Life Pro". The court fully upheld the claim of the plaintiff, who had not received the paid sea trip.

Contract terms and amount of damages

According to the agreement, the tour operator was to organise a cruise for two people on the Costa Smeralda 5* ship (Costa Cruises company). The trip was scheduled for 27 April 2020. As early as January of that year, the client made two payments totalling 58,350 hryvnia, fully covering the cost of the service.

However, the trip never took place. In the statement of claim, the man demanded a full refund of the cost of the unprovided service and the recovery of a penalty for delay in the amount of 50,780 hryvnia 14 kopecks. This amount was calculated at a rate of 3% for each day of delay.

Parties' positions in the case

The plaintiff emphasised that he had not refused the cruise. The company ignored a lawyer's inquiry regarding the status of the order. In August 2023, the client sent a written demand to the tour operator to return the funds, but received no response.

A representative of "Cruise-Life Pro" claimed that the company had paid for a package of services to a foreign partner, Atlantis Line Sea Cruises, as part of the payment for a group of tourists, but these funds were not returned to it. According to the defendant's version, the cruise was cancelled due to border closures during the COVID-19 quarantine. Subsequently, the partner, which is a resident of the Russian Federation, became subject to international sanctions from April 2022, leading to its disconnection from the cruise booking system.

The travel agency also cited the plaintiff's failure to meet the statute of limitations and demanded the recovery of 30,000 hryvnia in legal assistance costs from him.

The plaintiff's lawyer disputed these arguments. He noted that the statute of limitations is extended for the duration of the quarantine. Furthermore, a demand for a refund for an unprovided service is not a claim for compensation of damages, so there is no need to prove the defendant's fault.

Court decision

The court established that the defendant had not refuted the fact of the non-provision of the tourism product. The obligation to return the cost of the unprovided service is directly stipulated in Article 20 of the Law "On Tourism". The legislation does not impose on the consumer the obligation to independently seek ways to satisfy their monetary claims with other participants in the organisation of the trip, in particular with the tour operator's foreign partner.

Regarding the statute of limitations, the court noted that it had not been missed. Assessing the claim for penalties, the court found the tour operator's conduct to be inconsistent with the principle of good faith. The company did not return funds to the client, did not agree on the procedure for their return, and did not respond to the plaintiff's inquiries. The court found no grounds to reduce the claimed amount of penalties.

Thus, the company must pay 109,000 hryvnia.

Legal context

This case demonstrates the general approach of courts to disputes over cancelled tours. The burden of proving the absence of its own fault lies with the tour operator. References to the actions of third parties or force majeure circumstances do not in themselves exempt the company from returning funds if it has not taken sufficient measures to protect the client's interests.

At the same time, practice shows that the outcome of the review depends heavily on the completeness of the evidence provided by the plaintiff and the clarity of the terms of the tourism service contract itself.