From dream vacation to legal dispute: CJEU in Tuleka (C-469/24)

Tirana Post 

Some consumers have truly bad luck, but their misfortune raises interesting legal questions. In Tuleka (C-469/24), the applicants booked a 1-week, all-inclusive package holiday in a 5-star hotel in Albania. What was meant to be a dream vacation quickly turned into an ordeal due to: 1) Demolition of hotel swimming pools, commissioned by Albanian authorities and carried out in the presence of media and police; 2) Consequential destruction of the seafront promenade and waterfront infrastructure, blocking access to the sea; 3) Long queues and limited meals at the hotel restaurant; 4) Construction work to add a fifth floor, with building materials transported by guest elevators. Unsurprisingly, the travellers filed a claim for damages upon their return. They sought compensation for material damages equal to the full price of the package (due to non-performance) and non-material damages (exceeding the amount of material losses). 

Article 13 of the Package Travel Directive 2015/2302 makes organisers responsible for the performance of the package, with an option for the Member States to extend that responsibility to retailers, as well. This is irrespective of which travel service provider is to perform the service. Organisers must offer alternative arrangements and otherwise remedy lack of conformity, unless doing so is impossible or entails disproportionate costs. In that case, Article 14 entitles travellers to a price reduction and appropriate compensation, unless the lack of conformity is "attributable to a third party unconnected with the provision of the travel services included in the package travel contract and is unforeseeable and unavoidable". The hotel indeed argued that the swimming pool's demolition was attributable to a third party (Albanian authorities) and constituted an extraordinary circumstance.

Burden of proof: Attribution does not require fault

Polish law implementing the PTD placed a burden of proof on organisers that the lack of conformity was due to the fault of a third party to escape liability. This higher threshold limited organisers' ability to exonerate themselves. The CJEU held this approach incompatible with Article 14(3)(b) PTD. The phrase "attributable to" must be interpreted autonomously, given its lack of definition in the PTD (para 31). Its ordinary meaning refers to an outcome resulting from a person's conduct - without implying intentional or negligent failure (para 32). Consequently, attribution does not require fault. This interpretation gives organisers more scope to avoid liability (para 33). This interpretation is further aligned with the Directive's structure and context (para 36). As the PTD provides maximum harmonisation, the Member States cannot impose stricter standards (para 38).

Full refund for serious non-conformity 

The second question inquired whether travellers could claim a full price reduction, that is the total cost of the package, even if some services were performed, but the lack of conformity was serious. Article 14(1) PTD grants an "appropriate" price reduction, assessed objectively across the entire period of non-conformity (para 45). The assessment must consider not only organisers' obligations "explicitly stipulated in that contract, but also those linked to it as a result of the purpose of that contract" (para 46). The longer and more serious the non-performance or improper performance, the greater the price reduction (para 47). Considering the objective of the high level of consumer protection behind the adoption of the PTD, the CJEU determines that where the lack of conformity is so severe that the package travel no longer serves its purpose, that is it is objectively no longer of interest to the traveller, travellers are entitled to a full refund (para 49).

Price reduction and compensation: Restorative, not punitive

The PTD allows claims for non-material damages, which are always more difficult to quantify. A question arose whether in estimating travellers' damages any punitive damages should be considered (para 56). The CJEU emphasises the language of Article 14 PTD and clarifies that it aims to restore contractual balance (para 57), and does not mention or permit punitive damages (para 58). Punitive damages are therefore excluded (para 60).

Extraordinary circumstances: Was demolition unforeseeable?

Finally, the Court considered whether the demolition order issued by national authorities qualified as an unavoidable and extraordinary circumstance. Article 3(12) PTD defines such circumstances as events beyond the control of the organiser that could not have been avoided with reasonable measures (para 62). Recital 31 PTD contains a non-exhaustive list (para 63) and prior case law likens this concept to force majeure (para 64), demanding these events were unforeseeable (para 65). An order to demolish the swimming pool was unlikely unforeseeable, as such decisions are typically debated and publicised (para 67). The national court must determine whether either the organiser or hotel manager was notified of the administrative procedure or the content of the decision before it was implemented (para 70). 

Reforming Consumer Alternative Dispute Resolution in the EU

Online shopping has transformed how we buy goods and services, but it has also exposed a recurring challenge: resolving disputes when things go wrong. Damaged products, delayed deliveries, or disputes over contract terms, can leave consumers frustrated. Traditional litigation is often slow, costly, and intimidating, particularly for low-value claims. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) provides a faster, cheaper, and more accessible way for consumers and traders to settle disputes outside the courts. 

For the past decade, the EU has relied on ADR Directive, complemented by the European Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform established under ODR Regulation.

Over time, it has become evident that the existing ADR framework is unable to adequately address emerging types of disputes, such as those involving digital content, personal data in exchange for services, and pre-contractual obligations. According to the 2023 Consumer Conditions Scoreboard, one in four EU consumers faces a problem worthy of complaint, yet only a small proportion make use of ADR. Although the ODR platform, operational since 2016, attracted significant web traffic, it processed only around 200 cases per year across the EU, rendering its continuation both economically and practically unjustifiable. These shortcomings underscore the need to modernise the ADR provisions and replace the underutilised ODR platform with a more responsive mechanism that better reflects the realities of today’s digital market.

In response, the European Commission proposed a legislative package in October 2023, including a revision of the ADR Directive and the repeal of the ODR Regulation. Supporting this initiative, on July 17, 2025, the Council and the European Parliament reached an agreement on the final compromise text of the Proposal for a Directive amending the ADR Directive, currently pending formal adoption.

Forthcoming Changes in the ADR and ODR Regime

Expanded Scope: The proposed amendments extend the ADR Directive to pre- and post-contractual disputes, including misleading advertising, missing mandatory information, and digital content paid for with personal data. Non-EU traders may participate voluntarily, providing broader protection for EU consumers in cross-border cases.

Minimum harmonisation: Member States will be required to meet the baseline standards while retaining discretion to provide stronger consumer protection and extend ADR to additional disputes under EU or national law. Once adopted, consumer ADR will be governed under a single instrument, as the ODR Regulation has been repealed.

Clear deadlines: Traders must respond to ADR bodies within 20 working days (or 30 for complex disputes). Non-response counts as refusal to participate.

Automation: Digital tools and automated systems may be used, provided that: 

• Consumers are informed before the process begins;
• Consumers retain the right to human review;
• Personal data processed by automated systems complies with GDPR.

Incentives for participation: Member States are encouraged to introduce financial and non-financial incentives, such as reduced fees, awareness campaigns, or certification for compliant businesses. Sectors with low ADR participation or high complaint volumes, such as air transport and tourism, will receive special attention.

ADR contact points: Newly established ADR contact points will replace former ODR contact points, guiding consumers and traders to the competent ADR entity and explaining procedural rules. Contact points will be assigned based on the consumer’s residence, and Member States may extend their mandate to domestic disputes.

Additional measures:

• Consumers may be assisted by third parties (for example, consumer organisations or claims management companies), with transparency obligations maintained;
• ADR entities may bundle similar disputes to improve efficiency, with consumer consent;
• ADR entities will be required to publish biennial activity reports (Member States may set shorter reporting periods);
• Natural persons handling disputes will need to possess relevant expertise, including private international law.

The text is expected to be adopted by the European Parliament between 15-18 December 2025, followed by the Council. This indicates that the Proposal still remains subject to change and its final content may differ, so the current version should be considered provisional. 

Another key legislative step by the Parliament and the Council was Regulation (EU) 2024/3228 of 19 December 2024, repealing the ODR Regulation with regard to the discontinuation of the European ODR Platform. The document entered into force on January 19, 2025, and the ODR platform was discontinued on July 20, 2025. The European Commission was tasked with developing a new digital tool facilitating cross-border ADR with machine translation, which has yet to be developed.

Potential Implementation Challenges

While these reforms promise a more accessible and efficient system, implementing them in practice may present several challenges. Relying on automation can improve efficiency in ADR processes, but it may raise fairness and data protection risks. While GDPR compliance, transparent decision-making, and mandatory human review are essential to maintain consumer trust, implementing these safeguards in practice can be complex and resource-intensive. At the same time, Member State discretion allows for tailored approaches, yet risks creating inconsistent consumer experiences across the EU. Adequate resource allocation is also a concern since training staff and maintaining digital tools require investment, which may be challenging for smaller or less-resourced Member States. Finally, expanding ADR to non-EU traders broadens consumer protection but introduces cross-border enforcement challenges that necessitate clear guidance and oversight to ensure compliance. 

Looking Ahead

The proposed amendments to the ADR Directive aim to make dispute resolution faster, more accessible, and better suited to the digital age. Monitoring Member State implementation will be essential to evaluate effectiveness. Applied consistently, these changes could create a reliable, inclusive, and digitally integrated system for resolving consumer disputes outside the courts.

By Sitora Saidova

PhD Candidate, School of Law

University of Essex

Conference: 50 Years of Consumer Law in the European Union: Past, Present, and Future

On Friday, November 21, a conference "50 Years of Consumer Law in the European Union: Past, Present, and Future" takes place at the University of Luxembourg. With the conference speakers including prominent European consumer law scholars, judges and AG of the Court of Justice of the EU, as well as representatives of the European Commission, this event promises to deliver engaging and informative discussions on the trends of consumer protection. The registration is free of charge (on this website) and you may also participate in the event online.