The plaintiffs, Matías and Felisa, claimed EUR 514.20 plus interests and costs from the defendants, Grimaldi Terminal Barcelona SL and Click Ferry SL, as reimbursement of the price they paid for a round trip on the Barcelona-Porto Torres ferry route, scheduled for 6 and 12 August 2020.

Felisa communicated their wish to cancel the trip, given that the plaintiffs had agreed not to travel because they were self-employed and, in addition, Italy had extended the state of Covid-19 emergency until 15 October 2020. The plaintiffs argued that the medical quarantine decreed by the competent health authorities after the booking of the trip prevented it from being carried out. Click Ferry SL asked the plaintiffs for more documentation and ultimately denied the trip cancellation.

The plaintiffs invoked art 36 of RDL 11/2020 and the EU Regulation 2010 regarding art 21 of the Athens Convention 1974, as amended by the London Protocol of 1 November 2002. Article 21 provides that '[t]his Convention shall apply to commercial carriage undertaken by States or Public Authorities under contracts of carriage within the meaning of Article 1'.

The co-defendant Grimaldi Terminal Barcelona SL alleged that it was outside the plaintiffs' contractual relationship, its activity being the operation and administration of a port terminal. It added that on the dates set for the trips, entry into Italy was allowed without any kind of quarantine.

Held: The plaintiffs' claim is dismissed.

The exception raised by the co-defendant Grimaldi Terminal Barcelona SL must succeed, because the documentation provided does not result in its connection with the carriage contract signed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, it does not have the status of a legitimate procedural party (art 10 of Law 1/2000 of 7 January on Civil Procedure)

The right to terminate certain contracts without penalty by consumers and users where these are impossible to fulfil as a consequence of Covid-19 is regulated by art 36 of the Royal Decree-Law 11/2020 of 31 March, which adopts urgent complementary measures in the social and economic sphere to deal with COVID-19. In this case, however, the plaintiffs do not claim or prove anything that leads to the conclusion that fulfilment of the contract was impossible for them. They do not even describe a situation of financial difficulty that prevented them, or even discouraged them, from making the trip. Thus, the legal provision does not cover their intended withdrawal, and the contract does not do so either, because it does not contemplate among the cancellation cases the suspension of activity that the plaintiffs allege.

Finally, there is also no evidence that there was any impediment to entering Italy in August.