(AGENPARL) – Thu 23 October 2025 PRESS RELEASE No 134/25
Luxembourg, 23 October 2025
Judgment of the Court in Case C-469/24 | [Tuleka] 1
Package travel: where a contract has been performed improperly, the
traveller may be entitled to a full refund, even if certain services have
been provided
This is the case where the improper performance of the travel services is so serious that the package no
longer serves its purpose and the trip is objectively no longer of interest to the traveller
Two Polish travellers departed for an ‘all-inclusive’ stay at a five-star hotel in Albania.
The day after their arrival, they were awoken by the noise of work to demolish the hotel’s two swimming
pools, which had been commissioned by the Albanian authorities. That work lasted for four days, from 7.30
to 19.30, during which time the swimming pools, the seafront promenade and the paved waterfront with
access to the sea were entirely demolished. The holidaymakers also had to wait in long queues for their
meals and had to arrive at the start of service because the number of available meals was limited. The
serving of afternoon snacks was also cancelled. Lastly, during the final three days of their stay, new work
was started to add a fifth floor to the hotel.
The travellers initiated legal proceedings to claim a full refund of the price of their trip and compensation.
Seeking clarification of the rights conferred on them by the Package Travel Directive, 2 the Polish court
sought a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice.
The Court finds that a traveller is entitled to a full refund of the price paid not only where the travel
services have not been performed or have been performed improperly, but also where, even though
certain services have been provided, their improper performance is so serious that the package no
longer serves its purpose and the trip is objectively no longer of interest to the traveller. The Court
adds that it is for the national court to assess, in the light of all the circumstances, whether that is the case.
The Court also observes that the Directive is intended solely to restore the contractual balance between
travellers and travel organisers. Conversely, it does not enable travel organisers to be penalised, in
particular by imposing punitive damages.
The Court also points out that travellers are not entitled to receive compensation if the organiser proves
that the failure to perform or improper performance of the travel services is attributable to a third party and
is unforeseeable or unavoidable. According to the Directive, that possibility of escaping liability towards
the traveller is not dependent on any fault on the part of that third party. Accordingly, the Directive
precludes Polish legislation which requires the travel organiser to demonstrate such fault.
As regards the question whether the demolition work may be considered ‘an unavoidable and extraordinary
circumstance’, relieving the organiser of the obligation to pay compensation, the Court notes that that work
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
is the consequence of a measure taken by a public authority. Such measures are generally adopted in a
transparent manner and preceded by some publicity. It is therefore for the national court to ascertain
whether the travel organiser or the manager of the tourist infrastructure had been notified of the procedure
which led to the decision to demolish, or even participated in that procedure, or whether they had been
informed of the content of that decision before it was implemented. Where there is such participation or
notification, the demolition of the infrastructure in question cannot be considered unforeseeable.
Consequently, the organiser cannot be relieved of its obligation to pay compensation to the
travellers.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes
which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of
European Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute
itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision,
which is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
The full text and, as the case may be, the abstract of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the
day of delivery.
Stay Connected!
The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.
Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel
arrangements.
Communications Directorate