The Provincial Court of Madrid has condemned Viajes El Corte Inglés and MSC Cruises to return the money to a couple for their honeymoon to Cuba, as well as to pay them compensation of 1,500 euros, for negligent reporting. Both companies did not clearly warn about the specific immigration requirements that were requested in the trip for citizens born in Cuba, so the couple did not have the required documentation and were left without a trip.
The couple booked their honeymoon, destined for Cuba and the Caribbean, with the aforementioned companies, to travel from July 28 to August 4, 2018. The package included flights, accommodation and a cruise operated by MSC. However, on the day of departure, when they were at the Madrid-Barajas airport, MSC denied boarding to the husband because, having been born in Cuba and having dual nationality (Spanish and Cuban), the authorities required him to present a valid Cuban passport and a special entry permit, documents that he did not carry. He was only traveling with his Spanish passport.
As a consequence, his wife voluntarily decided not to travel so as not to leave him alone, thus leaving both of them without a trip. Faced with this situation, the couple decided to file a claim through the courts, alleging that the El Corte Inglés travel agency and MSC did not inform them of these specific requirements, even though they arranged the visas and had his Spanish passport where “Varadero” appeared as the place of birth. In fact, they claim that both told him that a Spanish passport was enough.
First claim: they get a refund for the trip but no compensation
The Court of 1st Instance No. 1 of Madrid only partially upheld the couple’s claim. Although it declared several cancellation clauses in the contract null and void as abusive, it did not hold El Corte Inglés or MSC responsible for the denied boarding. This court considered that the man hid or did not adequately communicate his dual nationality and that it was his responsibility to inform himself of the visa requirements.
For this reason, it treated the case as a “withdrawal”, ordering the return of the money but subtracting the penalties (management expenses and 25% of the amount), and denying compensation for moral damages. Not satisfied with the sentence, the couple decided to appeal it, filing an appeal before the Provincial Court of Madrid.
In this appeal, they argued that the agency had the Spanish passport in its possession for months, where the place of birth (Varadero) was clearly read. Therefore, they argued that they should have been warned about the special situation of dual nationality. In this sense, they also pointed out that the information they were given was insufficient and they were not warned of the requirements for those born in Cuba, violating the Consumer Protection Law.
The Provincial Court of Madrid does grant compensation and extends the return
The Provincial Court of Madrid ruled in favor of the couple. It rejected El Corte Inglés’ argument that it was only obliged to report on general requirements for EU citizens. Entering the defense of the couple, he determined that, since the agency had managed the visas and had access to his passport (which recorded his birth in Cuba), it should have detected the situation or, at least, have informed them in a differentiated way about the conditions of access.
As stated in ruling 15700/25, jurisprudence establishes that, in good faith, if an agency cannot report on the requirements of third countries, it must expressly warn the client of this limitation so that the client can search for the information, something that did not happen in this case. What’s more, the agency assumed and charged for the visa management, so it could not limit itself to referring the couple to consult on their own. Their silence and lack of warning about the different access regime to Cuba constituted negligence that caused the frustration of the trip.
Likewise, the Court confirmed that the clauses of the contract that exempt the agency from all responsibility for documentation problems are void in this context, explaining that it cannot rely on ignorance of the entry requirements of a country that offers in its catalog. Regarding this, they added that the lack of clear and precise information in the brochure or contract about these impediments makes the organizing company responsible.
Lastly, they recognized compensation for moral damages, due to the frustration of the trip (it was a honeymoon and a family trip), although they set it at 1,500 euros and not 3,000 as the couple requested. Both Viajes El Corte Inglés and MSC had to pay it, as well as the full refund of the amounts paid, without the deductions that the first instance judge had applied.
That is, it upheld the couple’s appeal and ordered both companies to pay them 3,199.30 euros for pecuniary damage (full reimbursement), 1,500 euros in compensation for moral damages and legal interest. This sentence was not final and an appeal could be filed against it before the Supreme Court.