NEW DEVELOPMENTS ON “DAMAGES FOR SPOILED HOLIDAYS"

 

The Court of Appeal of Naples, in its judgment No. 904/2025, recently laid down an innovative principle concerning the compensability of damages for a spoiled holiday, affirming that such damages may be awarded even where the holiday has been partially enjoyed, provided that its recreational purpose has been substantially frustrated.

The damage arising from a spoiled holiday is defined in Article 46 of the Italian Tourism Code as “moral damage resulting from the time of vacation uselessly spent and from the irretrievable loss of the opportunity, when the non-performance of the services comprising the travel package is not of minor importance within the meaning of Article 1455 of the Civil Code.”

This form of damage falls within the broader category of non-pecuniary damages, understood as the psychophysical or emotional harm suffered by the traveller as a result of the total or partial failure of the planned holiday due to the organiser’s breach of contract.

Moreover, damages for a spoiled holiday constitute an autonomous head of loss, distinct from economic or patrimonial damages, the compensability of which is governed by Article 43 of the Tourism Code. According to now well-established case law, such damages are unequivocally included among the non-pecuniary damages recoverable under Article 2059 of the Civil Code.

In fact, this type of harm does not entail a direct financial loss but rather a psychophysical distress suffered by the traveller as a consequence of being unable to enjoy the holiday as planned, due to the discrepancy between the services promised in the purchased all-inclusive travel package and those actually provided at the destination.

In the case brought before the Court of Appeal of Naples, a married couple had purchased an all-inclusive holiday package including high-end services such as a sea-view room, private beach, restaurant and entertainment facilities, all provided by a superior-category resort. Upon arrival, they discovered a general lack of correspondence between what was included in the package and what was actually supplied, as the services proved to be of significantly lower quality than advertised.

Nevertheless, they chose to proceed with their stay and complete the holiday. Subsequently, the couple brought proceedings before the Court of First Instance of Naples seeking a declaration of the organiser’s contractual breach and compensation for damages arising from the spoiled holiday.

Following the first-instance decision, which had only partially upheld their claim, the Court of Appeal of Naples, when seized, amended the lower court’s ruling, developing its reasoning through a number of key steps.

The Court first confirmed the existence of the deficiencies, holding that they amounted to serious discrepancies from the promised package and therefore constituted a breach of contract not of minor importance, exceeding the minimum threshold of tolerability within the meaning of Article 1455 of the Civil Code.

With regard to the proof of damage, the Court held that it had been sufficiently established by the claimants, since such prejudice does not require medical or psychological evidence; it is sufficient to provide objective evidence of the frustration of the recreational purpose of the family holiday, which, in the present case, was clearly demonstrated by the seriousness of the deficiencies encountered.

In particular, the Court focused on the discrepancy between the all-inclusive offer and the quality standard provided for in the travel package, which not only serves as evidence for establishing the organizer’s liability, but also constitutes the basis for the compensability of the damage arising from the spoiled holiday.

Indeed, in an innovative passage, the Court held that, in the present case, the discrepancy between what had been agreed upon and what was actually provided amounted to a serious contractual breach capable of frustrating the purpose of the holiday, irrespective of the fact that the claimants had nonetheless chosen to make use of the accommodation.

What is relevant for the purpose of compensability is therefore the defective performance of the contractual obligation, as evidenced by the ascertained deficiencies, which — as stated by the Court — “clearly demonstrate the existence of non-pecuniary damages for a spoiled holiday within the meaning of Article 46 of the Tourism Code (Legislative Decree No. 79/2011), since such circumstances undoubtedly caused a state of discomfort that prevented the parties from fully enjoying the recreational and pleasurable opportunity sought in the holiday.”

Consequently, the Court affirmed the right to compensation for non-pecuniary damages arising from a spoiled holiday, on the grounds that the underlying psychophysical distress arises irrespective of whether the holiday was entirely or only partially spoiled, the decisive factor being the substantial frustration of its recreational purpose.

Authors: Avv. Gianfilippo Chiricozzi e Alice Chessa