A Kyiv resident couldn't use her travel vouchers for Egypt and is demanding a refund of 16,000 hryvnias in advance payment—here's the court's decision.

A woman selected a travel package and paid 16,000 hryvnias. No one flew to Egypt as the war broke out, prompting her to demand a refund of the amounts paid. This is stated in the decision of the Darnytsia District Court of Kyiv, published on December 9, 2024.

In December 2021, the woman contacted the travel agency LLC "Franchise Network 'Let's Go With Us'", whose sub-agent was an individual entrepreneur. She chose a travel package, signed a contract, and paid 16,000 hryvnias. The total cost of the trip was 52,270 hryvnias. The flight was scheduled for April 18, 2022. The next payment was to be made on March 1, and the final payment was due three days before departure. No one flew to Egypt as the borders were closed, and flights have not resumed to this day. All requests for a refund were met with a negative response.

Currently, the woman is unable to travel for vacation because the total amount has already tripled. She lost her partner, has three minor children, and works two jobs. Therefore, she repeatedly requested a refund, but each time she was denied.

"On December 28, 2021, based on the signed contract for the provision of tourist services, the tour operator received booking requests from the travel agent containing information about a custom set of tourist services for 6 (six) tourists, namely, accommodation at the 'Sunny Days Resort Spa & Aqua Park 4*' hotel from April 18, 2022, to April 25, 2022, meals, airline tickets Kyiv-Hurghada-Kyiv, transfers, and insurance. The cost of services amounted to 44,419 hryvnias. According to the terms of clause 6.1.1 of the contract for the provision of tourist services, the cost of tourist services ordered by the tourist amounts to 52,270 hryvnias. At the same time, according to clause 6.2.1 of the contract for the provision of tourist services, the tourist undertakes to pay the tour operator 16,000 hryvnias within 1 banking day from the date of signing the contract, and the remaining part of the total cost of tourist services specified in clause 6.1.1 of the contract must be paid no later than March 18, 2022 (clause 6.2.2 of the Contract for the Provision of Tourist Services). According to clause 4.4 of the contract, the travel agent receives a reward for fulfilling the obligations under the contract, namely the difference between the cost of the services provided (tourist voucher (tour product)) and the costs incurred by the travel agent as a result of ordering such tourist services. On January 31, 2024, the travel agent sent letters for the refund of funds for the requests, in particular, this document confirmed that the plaintiff would have no further claims of a material or moral nature against LLC 'Tourist Company 'Anex Tour' or its officials after the refund of the funds. On February 6, 2024, the tour operator transferred 8,149 hryvnias to the travel agent according to the received letters, and on the same day, the sub-agent returned 16,000 hryvnias to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant requested the court to dismiss the claim, as they fulfilled their obligation to refund the paid advance," stated LLC 'Tourist Company 'Anex Tour'.

What did the court decide?

The court denied the woman’s claim. LLC 'Tourist Company 'Anex Tour' did not violate the terms of the contract or tourism legislation, fulfilled all contractual conditions, and therefore cannot be held liable for actions that neither party was aware of or could have foreseen, committed by the aggressor state of the Russian Federation, which is culpable and essentially acts as a third party unrelated to the provision of services.

"The plaintiff did not provide any proper evidence regarding the tour operator's violation of tourism legislation or grounds for holding it liable. Based on the above, the claims for the termination of the contract for the provision of tourist services dated December 28, 2021, lack legal grounds and therefore cannot be granted. The claims for the recovery of the advance payment of 16,000 hryvnias also cannot be granted, as the defendant provided the court with appropriate evidence of its voluntary return to the plaintiff, which was refuted by the plaintiff. The claims for inflationary compensation and penalties from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff also cannot be granted, as they are derivative from the claims for the recovery of the paid advance," emphasized the court.