The Supreme prohibits Iberia anularte the return ticket even if you have not used the back

The Supreme Court has declared to be unfair several clauses used by Iberia on their tickets, including those to exempt the air carrier from any responsibility in case of loss of a link, or the one that allowed him to cancel trips purchased in case of non-use of any of them, for example, on a flight back and forth.

The First Chamber of the Court dismissed the appeal filed by Iberia against the sentence of the Provincial Audience of Madrid that had estimated the collective actions taken by the Organization of Consumers and Users (OCU) in respect of any general conditions used by the airline in their contracts of carriage by air of passengers.

MORE INFORMATION on The OCU denounces several airlines charge surcharges when paying by card The fight for the punctuality of Iberia

The ruling confirms the invalidity of the clause which exempts the company from liability in case of loss of a link. According to the decision, and without prejudice to the fact that the carrier does not have to respond necessarily, and in any case, when the traveler loses the link, the disputed contract contains a waiver of liability drafted in excessively generic and leave the issue to the exclusive control of the company, and that, therefore, harms, against the good faith, the rights of the consumer in order to demand accountability for the damage and harm that we cause the breach of contract.

Travel back and forth

it is Also considered an unfair clause (known as no show, which allowed Iberia to cancel trips purchased in case of non-use of any of them. The chamber considers that the decision of lowering the prices for the case of the joint sale of several sections is a legitimate choice of the airline. But do not assume that, once you have sold a ticket that Betsidney includes multiple segments to a lower price than you would have to market them separately, the use by the customer of any of those sections (for example, on a round trip ticket, non-use of the back and yes only the back) cause a detriment to the airline, which has been charged the full price of the ticket that brought the the sale, without that the absence of a passenger on the plane will increase your costs, well, in any case would happen otherwise.

“The clause in question involves an imbalance of rights and obligations, contrary to good faith because, to a consumer who has fulfilled his obligation, that is only the payment of the price, it deprives him in any case from the enjoyment of the performance contracted for, that for reasons which may be of nature very diverse has decided or has been compelled to enjoy only in part,” the ruling reads.

The judgment of the Supreme is also confirmed by the nullity of the clause which empowers the company to modify the terms of transport agreed to “in case of need”. deneme bonusu Considers that this expression is excessively generic and vague and can be interpreted reasonably in a manner that includes assumptions in excess of the “extraordinary circumstances” which excluded the liability of the air carrier, in the interpretation of them has done the Court of Justice of the European Union.

“The excessive amplitude of the expression used can enhance unreasonably the contractual position of the carrier in case of breach of the conditions of the contract of air transportation agreed upon, to the detriment of the consumer”, indicates the statement.