I.

EXCEPTION OF TERRITORIAL NON-COMPETENCE OF THE COURT

We inform the court that we have agreed with the plaintiff in the file that any dispute that cannot be
resolved amicably will be resolved by the competent court at the place of conclusion of the contract.
At the same time, through the same contractual clause, the undersigned agreed with the plaintiff
that the place of conclusion of the contract will be considered the seat of the organizing travel
agency, and not the actual, actual place of conclusion of the contract.

According to art. 10.9. from the contract: "Disputes that cannot be settled amicably will be settled by
court, the competent court being the one at the place of conclusion of the contract, respectively the
headquarters of the organizing tourism agency".

We appreciate that the intention of the parties opposite to the place of conclusion of the contract is
very clear from the final sentence of the aforementioned clause, namely the headquarters of the
organizing travel agency, this convention between the parties being in full agreement with the
principle of contractual freedom.

According to art. 1.169 Civil Code: "Parties are free to conclude any contracts and determine their
content, within the limits imposed by law, public order and good morals."

At the same time, the legality and possibility of the agreement between the parties regarding the
place of conclusion of the contract also results from the provisions of art. 126 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, specifically from those reproduced in paragraph (1), respectively: "The parties may agree
in writing or, in the case of disputes arising, also by verbal statement before the court that the
processes regarding goods and other rights of which they can order to be judged by courts other
than those that, according to the law, would be territorially competent to judge them, except when
this competence is exclusive".

Moreover, according to art. 1.186 para. (1) Civil Code: "The contract is concluded at the moment and
in the place where the acceptance reaches the offeror, even if he is not aware of it for reasons
beyond his control". Therefore, the relevant rule states that the place of conclusion of the contract is
the place where the acceptance reaches the offeror, and not the place where the acceptance starts.

Therefore, we consider that the place of conclusion of the contract was established as being in
Bucharest, all the more so since the rule of law established by the legislator must automatically be
interpreted according to the headquarters of the bidder, in this case, the headquarters of the
company CHRISTIAN 76 TOUR S.R.L., and not in depending on the headquarters of our branch in Cluj,
since the bidder, in this case, was the company CHRISTIAN 76 TOUR S.R.L., and not the branch of the
company in Cluj.

Moreover, the contract between the parties was not and could not be concluded between the
plaintiff and the branch of the company in Cluj, an aspect that also results from the content of the
contract from point I named "Contracting Parties".

Therefore, we request the honorable court to find that the first court was incompetent to resolve
the case, that the incompetence was invoked under the law, respectively in accordance with the
provisions of art. 130 para. (3) Code of Civil Procedure and, as a consequence, we request the court
to admit the exception raised and to send the case for trial to the competent court, respectively to
the Bucharest District Court 1.

II. THE INVALIDITY OF THE COURT SUMMONS REQUEST

In fact, through the application for summons, the plaintiff claims that, once she arrived at the Aloe
Hotel in Greece - Rhodes, she was offered an unsanitary hotel room, full of mold, with ants and
other dead insects on the floor, with bed linen of bed stained and dirty, towels and robes alike, walls
stained with various liquids, sticky and dirty floor and cobwebs.

In the context of the above and considering the fact that the company did not offer him an
alternative accommodation, he requests that the company be ordered to pay compensation equal to
the value of the entire price paid under the contract, namely the amount of 2371 euros and that the
company be ordered to bear all expenses of judgment.

Under the evidentiary aspect, it requests the approval of the following means of evidence:

1. the company's inquiry;

2. the testimonial evidence of the witness Gabriel Tămas;

3. photo plates attached to the application and

4. the documents attached to the application.

In relation to the above, we ask the court to find the following:

1. in relation to the company's inquiry

According to art. 355 para. (1) Code of Civil Procedure: "The State and other legal entities under
public law, as well as legal entities under private law, will respond in writing to the interrogation that
will be communicated to them in advance, under the conditions provided for in art. 194 lit. e)".

And, according to art. 194 lit. e) Code of Civil Procedure: "The summons request will include:

e) showing the evidence on which each end of the claim is supported. When the proof is made
through documents, the provisions of art. 150. When the plaintiff wants to prove his claim or any of
its parts by questioning the defendant, he will ask for his appearance in person, if the defendant is a
natural person. In cases where the law stipulates that the defendant will respond in writing to the
interrogation, it will be attached to the summons. When witness evidence is requested, the name,
surname and address of the witnesses will be shown, the provisions of art. 148 para. (1) the second
sentence being applicable accordingly".

Therefore, from the corroboration of the two legal texts above, it follows that the interrogation
proposed by the plaintiffs had to be attached to the summons and, at the same time, communicated
together with it.

According to art. 254 para. (1) Code of Civil Procedure: "Evidence is proposed, under penalty of
forfeiture, by the plaintiff through the summons, and by the defendant through the response, unless
the law provides otherwise. They can also be proposed orally, in the specific cases provided by law".
And, according to art. 254 para. (2) Civil Procedure Code: "Evidence that was not proposed under the
conditions of para. (1) will no longer be able to be requested and approved during the process (...)".

Therefore, the non-filing of the interrogatory attached to the summons request and implicitly the
failure to communicate it together with the summons request, from our point of view, causes the
plaintiff to lose the right to propose further evidence and, at the same time, establishes a ban on the
court with regarding the acceptance and administration of evidence.
Therefore, we ask the court to reject the proposed evidence and to oppose any attempt to
administer it.

2. in relation to the testimony of the witness Gabriel Tămas

As it follows from the summons (page 4) and we quote:

"Signed together with my friend who accompanied me on vacation (...)".

So, the witness Gabriel Tămas is actually the friend of the applicant.

In this context, at art. 315 of the New Code of Civil Procedure and entitled "Persons who cannot be
heard as witnesses" the following are provided:

"I cannot witness:

1. relatives and relatives up to the third degree inclusive;

2. the husband, ex-husband, fiance or common-law partner;

3. those in enmity or in ties of interest with any of the parties;

4. persons placed under judicial prohibition;

5. those convicted of perjury.

Therefore, we consider that the testimony of the witness Gabriel Tămaș is inadmissible by reference
to the above, which is why we request its rejection as inadmissible.

3. in relation to the photo plates attached to the summons

First of all, we consider that they are not conclusive enough, in the sense that they do not present
sufficient guarantees both in relation to their provenance and in relation to their content (the place
captured by them).

Even more concretely, we appreciate that the court cannot establish, with sufficient precision,
whether the presented pictures were taken by the plaintiff, as she claims, or whether they were
downloaded from the Internet, nor whether the images captured by them refer to the room at the
Hotel Aloe from Greece, Rodos where the two were accommodated (the plaintiff together with his
friend) or any other room within the premises of this Hotel.

Those pictures could be taken anywhere and anytime.

We appreciate that we would have found ourselves in the presence of a conclusive and admissible
means of evidence if the plaintiff had presented to the court a video (taken with her mobile phone)
starting with the entrance to the Hotel and showing practically the entire route traveled by the
plaintiff from entering the Hotel and up to the assigned room, including the surprise of the number
assigned by the Hotel to this room.

We ask ourselves, somewhat rhetorically, and invite the honorable court to do the same:

Why did the complainant and/or her friend proceed to take pictures, capturing certain areas that
cannot be identified as being part of the location of the Aloe Hotel in Greece, Rhodes when she
could very well have made a video recording that would allow the exact identification of tours of the
necessary elements (location, actual accommodation conditions, etc.)?
Therefore, we consider that the summons request is unfounded, as it is not supported by admissible
evidence, as we stated, which is why we request its rejection as unfounded.

In the alternative to the above, respectively in the situation where we admit that the plaintiff was
accommodated in an unsanitary Hotel room, with ants and other dead insects on the floor, with
stained and dirty bed linen, with towels and same robes, with walls stained with various liquids, with
sticky and dirty floor and with cobwebs, we consider the request unfounded, considering the
following arguments:

It is obvious that such a situation would constitute non-compliance in the sense provided by the
provisions of art. 3 point 11 of O.G. NO. 2/2018.

However, we believe that such non-compliance could not be considered significant or likely to oblige
the company to return the entire contractual price in the form of compensation.

Thus, according to art. 14 para. (11) from O.G. NO. 2/2018 and quote:

"If the proposed alternative services, according to para. (10), have as a consequence a package of a
lower quality than that specified in the contract regarding the travel service package, the organizing
travel agency grants the traveler an appropriate price reduction".

And, according to art. 14 para. (13) from O.G. NO. 2/2018:

"If the non-conformity substantially affects the execution of the package, and the organizing travel
agency has failed to remedy it within a reasonable period established by the traveler, he may
terminate the contract regarding the travel service package without paying a termination penalty
and , as the case may be, may request, in accordance with art. 15, price reduction and/or
compensation".

We appreciate that from these legal provisions it follows that the tourist can obtain the termination
of the contract and the full refund of the price only when the non-conformity substantially affects
the execution of the package and the travel agency fails to remedy it, and otherwise can only obtain
an adequate price reduction .

In this case, the court should take into account that the plaintiff did not terminate the contract, but
on the contrary, she benefited in full from the purchased services, and on the other hand, that the
circumstance is relevant both from the perspective of the rights that the plaintiff benefits from, and
from the perspective of the situation of fact, in the sense that the simple non-termination of the
contract proves that the non-compliance was not one that substantially affected the package, as the
plaintiff claims in the summons.

If indeed the hotel room in which she was accommodated had the non-conformities invoked by the
plaintiff, then surely she would have terminated the contract and requested a full refund of the
price, it being absurd to assume that she would have chosen to continue living for 7 nights in such an
unsanitary room.

Therefore, even if we admit that there were certain non-conformities, we could not admit that they
significantly affected the purchased service package and implicitly that the plaintiff would thus be
entitled to the full refund of the service package.

In this context, given the principle of availability and the cases of minus petita, plus petita and extra
petita, respectively the fact that the court cannot pronounce a solution by which it offers less than
what was requested, more than what was requested or otherwise requested, we appreciate that the
court cannot ex officio make an assessment of the adequacy of the price reduction and oblige the
company to return the difference.

At the same time, we appreciate that the request for summons is not motivated in fact under this
aspect, being devoid of object, so it is necessary to cancel it, since the court cannot carry out a
verification of one of the conditions for exercising the civil action, namely the formulation of a
claims.

Thus, the court cannot verify whether the right to reduce the price is exercised in good faith, nor
whether it is exercised within its internal and/or external limits.

The court cannot quantify a possible reduction in the contract price, as it is the plaintiff's
responsibility to make an accurate and serious quantification of the reduction, and not a superficial
and exaggerated quantification by reference to the entire contract price.

Also, the court cannot carry out a check even in relation to the condition of the interest in promoting
the summons request, respectively its determined, legitimate and serious character.