After five years, the Supreme Court has confirmed that the travel agency charged the cancellation reasonably

In 2018, travel agent customers refused to travel to Crete at the last minute due to fears of the Zorbas Medikan that was about to sweep across the Mediterranean. The travel agent judged the cancellation as "unjustified" and charged customers 100% cancellation fees. Although the case seemed to us at the time of taking over the travel agent's representation to be evidentially loaded in the travel agent's favour, we had to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court where the travel agent and our arguments were finally vindicated. Why?

Both the District and Municipal Court in Prague, which dealt with the case, concluded that since the air connection to Crete worked, the medic did not strike and all other customers completed the trip without any major complications, the provision of § 2535 of the Civil Code, which later became famous during the covid pandemic, could not be applied. On the other hand, however, the courts clearly felt for the travel agency's customers and therefore decided to use exceptional legal tools and upheld both customers' claims, arguing that "the demand for payment of severance pay in the amount of 100% of the tour price appears to be unreasonable, its application is contrary to good morals and is a clear abuse of the law".

We are really glad that the travel agency did not give up and dragged the case with our legal support to the Supreme Court. For example, the following conclusions of the Supreme Court, which we finally got, should act as a balm for the ears of travel agencies:

• It would be contrary to the idea of fairness for the costs to be borne by the travel agency which, according to the interests of the customer, has provided everything necessary for the trip to take place (booking of flights, related fees and at least accommodation at the destination) and only due to fear or apprehension of possible (but not yet existing) threats at the destination, which are subjective criteria, the trip was not carried out for reasons on the part of the customer.

• The claim for payment of compensation does not constitute an abuse of rights by the defendant, in a situation where it paid for all the services connected with the trip for the applicant, communicated with her and did not benefit from the applicant's withdrawal from the contract, as it failed to find a replacement customer just one day before departure, as a result of which not only the flight payments but also the payments for accommodation and meals which it had arranged for the applicant were forfeited. Thus, the defendant did not commit any dishonesty towards the applicant.