Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:833
Date: 2025-10-23
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Poland

Translation C-469/24 – 1 
Case C-469/24 [Tuleka] i 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
3 July 2024 
Referring court: 
Sąd Rejonowy w Rzeszowie (Poland) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
27 March 2024 
Party initiating the proceedings before the referring court: 
B.F. (1) 
B.F. (2) 
Other party to the proceedings: 
Z. sp. z o.o. 
  
ORDER 
27 March 2024 
The Sąd Rejonowy w Rzeszowie I Wydział Cywilny (District Court, Rzeszów, 
1st Division, dealing with Civil Matters) […] 
 […] 
following the hearing on 27 March 2024 
 […] 
of the case brought by B.F. (1) and B.F. (2) 
against Z Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością 
 
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 3. 2024 – CASE C-469/24 
 
2  
for payment, 
pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
decides: 
to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
for a preliminary ruling: 
I. Must the provisions of Article 14(3)(b), read in conjunction with Article 4, 
of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending 
Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European 
Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC 
– be interpreted as precluding the application of a provision of national law such 
as Article 50(3)(2) of the ustawa z 24 listopada 2017 r. o imprezach 
turystycznych i powiązanych usługach turystycznych (Law of 24 November 
2017 on package travel and linked travel arrangements) in so far as that 
provision requires the travel organiser to demonstrate that the lack of 
conformity was the fault of a third party unconnected with the provision of 
travel services included in the package travel contract where such lack of 
conformity was unforeseeable or unavoidable? 
II. Must the provision of Article 14(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel 
and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and 
Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and 
repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC 
– be interpreted as not precluding an interpretation of provisions of national law 
according to which an appropriate price reduction for any period of lack of 
conformity may result in the entire price paid by travellers being refunded due 
to gross lack of conformity, despite the fact that travellers used part of the 
services provided by the organiser? 
III. Must the provisions of Article 14(1) and (2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package 
travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 
and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and 
repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC 
– be interpreted as meaning that a claim for a price reduction for any period of 
lack of conformity and a claim for compensation for any material damage 
resulting from the lack of conformity are only intended to restore the 
contractual balance between the parties, or are those claims also punitive and 
meant to deter the organiser from allowing the lack of conformity to occur? 
TULEKA 
 
3 
IV. Must the provision of Article 3(12) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel 
and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and 
Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and 
repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC 
– be interpreted as meaning that measures taken by public authorities, including a 
decision issued by a government representative to demolish a hotel, do not fall 
within the concept of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances? 
1. Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending 
Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European 
Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC 
Recital 17 
Only the combination of different types of travel services, such as accommodation, 
carriage of passengers by bus, rail, water or air, as well as rental of motor 
vehicles or certain motorcycles, should be considered for the purposes of 
identifying a package or a linked travel arrangement. 
Recital 22 
The main characteristic of a package is that there is one trader responsible as an 
organiser for the proper performance of the package as a whole. 
Recital 23 
Therefore, it should be clarified in this Directive that organisers are responsible 
for the performance of the travel services included in the package travel contract, 
unless national law provides that both the organiser and the retailer are liable. 
Recital 31 
They should also have the right to terminate the package travel contract without 
paying any termination fee where unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances 
will significantly affect the performance of the package. This may cover for 
example warfare, other serious security problems such as terrorism, significant 
risks to human health such as the outbreak of a serious disease at the travel 
destination, or natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes or weather 
conditions which make it impossible to travel safely to the destination as agreed in 
the package travel contract. 
Recital 34 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 3. 2024 – CASE C-469/24 
 
4  
Travellers should also be entitled to a price reduction, termination of the package 
travel contract and/or compensation for damages. Compensation should also 
cover non-material damage, such as compensation for loss of enjoyment of the 
trip or holiday because of substantial problems in the performance of the relevant 
travel services. 
Article 2(3) 
This Directive does not affect national general contract law such as the rules on 
the validity, formation or effect of a contract, in so far as general contract law 
aspects are not regulated in this Directive. 
Article 3(12) 
‘unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances’ means a situation beyond the 
control of the party who invokes such a situation and the consequences of which 
could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken; 
Article 3(13) 
‘lack of conformity’ means a failure to perform or improper performance of the 
travel services included in a package; 
Article 4 
Unless otherwise provided for in this Directive, Member States shall not maintain 
or introduce, in their national law, provisions diverging from those laid down in 
this Directive, including more or less stringent provisions which would ensure a 
different level of traveller protection. 
Article 14(1) 
Member States shall ensure that the traveller is entitled to an appropriate price 
reduction for any period during which there was lack of conformity, unless the 
organiser proves that the lack of conformity is attributable to the traveller. 
Article 14(2) 
The traveller shall be entitled to receive appropriate compensation from the 
organiser for any damage which the traveller sustains as a result of any lack of 
conformity. Compensation shall be made without undue delay. 
Article 14(3) 
The traveller shall not be entitled to compensation for damages if the organiser 
proves that the lack of conformity is: 
(a) attributable to the traveller; 
TULEKA 
 
5 
(b) attributable to a third party unconnected with the provision of the travel 
services included in the package travel contract and is unforeseeable or 
unavoidable; or 
(c) due to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances. 
2. Provisions of national law relied on 
Ustawa z dnia 24 listopada 2017 r. o imprezach turystycznych i powiązanych 
usługach turystycznych (Law of 24 November 2017 on package travel and linked 
travel arrangements) 
Article 4(15) 
‘unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances’ means a situation beyond the 
control of the party who invokes such a situation and the consequences of which 
could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken; 
Article 4(16) 
‘lack of conformity’ means a failure to perform or improper performance of the 
travel services included in a package; 
Article 50(1) 
The traveller shall be entitled to a price reduction for any period during which 
lack of conformity was found, unless it was caused solely by the traveller’s action 
or omission. 
Article 50(2) 
The traveller shall be entitled to compensation for material or non-material 
damage suffered as a result of lack of conformity. The organiser shall pay the 
compensation for material or non-material damage without delay. 
Article 50(3) 
The traveller shall not be entitled to compensation for material or non-material 
damage in connection with lack of conformity if the organiser demonstrates that: 
(1) the lack of conformity was the fault of the traveller; 
(2) the lack of conformity was the fault of a third party unconnected with the 
provision of the travel services included in the package travel contract and it was 
unforeseeable or unavoidable; or 
(3) the lack of conformity was due to unavoidable and extraordinary 
circumstances. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 3. 2024 – CASE C-469/24 
 
6  
3. Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main 
proceedings 
1 On 27 July 2022, B.F. (1) and B.F. (2) (‘the applicants’) entered into Contract No 
[…] with Z. spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością [Z. limited liability 
company] with its registered office in O. (‘the defendant’). The subject of the 
contract was the organisation by the defendant of an all-inclusive travel package 
from 1 September to 8 September 2023 at the 5-star […] hotel in Albania. 
2 The applicants decided to go on a 7-day holiday once a year. In connection with 
the above, they paid PLN 8 696 for the travel package. The package offered to the 
applicants included all amenities, including access to a sauna and gym, beauty 
treatments, massage, a mini bar and Mediterranean cuisine, including vegetarian 
and vegan meal options. 
3 On the first day of their stay, that is to say, on 2 September 2022, the applicants 
were woken in the morning by the noise of construction work involving heavy 
equipment – the swimming pools located next to the hotel where the applicants 
were accommodated were being demolished with pneumatic drills. The 
demolition work was conducted in the presence of the media. The defendant 
admits that some of the infrastructure, that is, two swimming pools and the terrace 
in front of the restaurant, was taken out of commission. However, the defendant 
points out that the decision to do so was made by the local authority. As 
compensation for the inconvenience, the defendant offered the applicants a 
holiday voucher worth PLN 750. The demolition work lasted from the first to the 
fourth day of the applicants’ stay, from 7.30 to 19.30. The work resulted in the 
demolition of two freshwater swimming pools, a seafront promenade, a paved 
waterfront with access to the sea, and waterfront infrastructure. 
4 Due to the construction work, some guests ended their stay. The applicants 
decided to continue their stay. The applicants waited in long queues to get their 
meals and had to arrive at the start of the designated time due to the small number 
of meals served. The serving of snacks to guests at 17.00 was discontinued. 
5 In the final three days, after the work with pneumatic drills had been completed, 
the construction of the fifth floor of the hotel building where the applicants were 
staying began. Construction materials were transported via lifts that were used by 
hotel guests and workers alike. 
6 The applicants demanded that the defendant pay them PLN 22 696, including 
PLN 8 969 as compensation for material damage in connection with non-
performance of the contract due to the defendant’s fault, and PLN 14 000 as 
compensation for non-material damage (PLN 7 000 for each applicant). 
7 The defendant admits that it had a contract with the applicants during the period 
from 1 to 8 September 2022 which concerned the […] hotel in Albania. The 
defendant admits that during the applicants’ stay, work began on the construction 
of the fifth floor of the hotel. The defendant also admits that from the second day 
TULEKA 
 
7 
of the applicants’ stay there was an exceptional situation: workers with heavy 
equipment appeared on the hotel premises, accompanied by police, and began 
demolishing part of the hotel infrastructure (two swimming pools). The defendant 
indicates that it found itself in unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances. The 
defendant argues that the measure taken by the public authorities (the decision on 
demolition), which its addressee had to comply with, is an unavoidable and 
extraordinary event that releases the defendant from its obligation to provide 
compensation for material and non-material damage. 
The questions referred 
In the opinion of the referring court, the facts of the case fall within the normative 
scope of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, 
amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the 
European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 
90/314/EEC. 
A specific issue of EU law that arises in connection with the present case is the 
compatibility of the act of national law with the directive. When developing the 
normative basis for its judgment, the referring court came to the conclusion that 
the act of national law does not correspond to the act of EU law. 
The Court of Justice has already ruled that a national court, faced with a national 
provision falling within the scope of European Union law which it considers to be 
incompatible with European Union law, may decline to apply that provision, 
without being prevented from making a reference to the Court for a preliminary 
ruling (judgment of 19 January 2010, Kücükdeveci, C-555/07, EU:C:2010:21). 
The nature of the harmonisation introduced by a directive must be inferred from 
an analysis of its provisions. In the opinion of the referring court, the directive 
introduces complete harmonisation and thus there is no possibility for a Member 
State to regulate the matter covered by the directive in a different (or more 
favourable) manner than the standard set by the directive. 
As stipulated in Article 8 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on 
package travel, package holidays and package tours, Member States may adopt or 
return more stringent provisions in the field covered by that directive to protect 
the consumer. 
Article 4 of Directive 2015/2302, which is currently in force, stipulates that 
Member States may not maintain or introduce, in their national law, provisions 
diverging from those laid down in the directive, including more or less stringent 
provisions which would ensure a different level of traveller protection. 
Article 50(3)(2) of the Law on package travel and inked travel arrangements 
provides that the traveller is not entitled to compensation for material or non-
material damage in connection with a lack of conformity if the organiser 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 3. 2024 – CASE C-469/24 
 
8  
demonstrates that the lack of conformity was the fault of a third party unconnected 
with the provision of the travel services included in the package travel contract 
and it was unforeseeable or unavoidable. 
In the view of the referring court, the EU legislature does not require that the 
premiss of fault be examined or demonstrated. The directive only provides for a 
lack of conformity that is attributable to a third party unconnected with the 
provision of the travel services included in the package travel contract. 
Article 14(3)(b) of the directive stipulates that the traveller is not entitled to 
compensation for damages if the organiser proves that the lack of conformity is 
attributable to a third party unconnected with the provision of the travel services 
included in the package travel contract and is unforeseeable or unavoidable. 
In the opinion of the referring court, the introduction by the Polish legislature of 
an additional condition in the form of the organiser’s obligation to demonstrate 
fault on the part of a third party is not justified in light of the principle of complete 
harmonisation (Article 4 of the directive). 
An additional argument is that in Article 8 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 
13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours, the EU 
legislature allowed the national legislature to regulate the matter covered by the 
directive more stringently or more favourably, provided this was done solely for 
the purpose of protecting consumers. Subsequently, the EU legislature departed 
from that principle. Thus, at present, in addition to the literal interpretation, the 
historical interpretation also leads to the conclusion that Article 50(3)(2) of the 
national law is incompatible with Article 14(3)(b) of the directive. 
Nowadays, travel services often have a cross-border character. An example of this 
is the present case, where the travellers entered into a contract in Poland, but the 
contract was performed in Albania. Therefore, discrepancies in the regulations – 
including the introduction of an additional condition, that is to say, requiring more 
than a lack of conformity, namely fault – may result in various legal consequences 
for both travellers and organisers. 
That issue is relevant to the present case, since in its plea the defendant indicates 
that a third party unconnected with the provision of travel services (the Albanian 
government) is responsible for the lack of conformity. The applicants, in turn, in a 
letter dated 29 September 2022, indicate that it is the organiser which is at fault 
for the lack of conformity. Thus, there is a need to examine whether, in the 
circumstances of the present case, the condition of ‘fault’ on the part of the third 
party has been demonstrated, or to omit that condition as incompatible with EU 
law. 
In Polish civil law, fault does not have a normative definition. When talking about 
fault, it is necessary to keep in mind the objective element, that is to say, the 
unlawfulness of the conduct in question. This does not refer solely to conduct that 
is incompatible with legal (criminal, civil, administrative) norms, but also to 
TULEKA 
 
9 
conduct that is contra bonos mores in that it does not meet the standard of 
prudence. The second element of fault is subjective and is associated with the 
defendant being accused (in court) that it failed to do what it was obliged to do, 
even though it could and should have done it. This has to do with analysing the 
sphere of mental experiences of the subject in question (the defendant). The 
examination of such matters is not required by the directive. 
For the above reasons, the referring court is of the view that Article 50(3)(2) of the 
Law on package travel and linked travel arrangements is incompatible with 
Article 14(3)(b), read in conjunction with Article 4, of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package 
travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 
and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and 
repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC.  
It should be pointed out that the incompatibility of that provision with EU law has 
also been raised in the Polish literature […]. 
As regards the second question, the referring court has doubts as to whether a 
claim for an appropriate price reduction for the period during which there was a 
lack of conformity may result in a demand that the entire price the travellers paid 
to the defendant be refunded. 
In the court’s opinion, from a lexical point of view, ‘appropriate price reduction’ 
can also be considered to include the maximum reduction, which would in effect 
result in the entire price being refunded. That would constitute the maximum 
reduction and would lead to the conclusion that the defendant provided a 
worthless service. The above could also be due to the gross lack of conformity 
faced by the travellers, and therefore by consumers. In the view of the referring 
court, that reasoning is supported by recital 3 of the directive, in which the EU 
legislature indicated its goal of attaining a high level of consumer protection. 
Thus, a gross lack of conformity would be met with an equivalent response from 
the national court, from which the consumers expect protection in the form of a 
finding that the level of non-conformity meant that the service provided by the 
defendant was worthless. 
On the other hand, the referring court recognises that the defendant partially 
performed the service. The applicants also took advantage of the defendant’s offer 
to a subminimal degree. It is therefore questionable whether, in a situation where 
the travellers took advantage of the service – despite the gross lack of 
conformity – it is permissible, in light of the assumptions made by the EU 
legislature, to demand that the entire price paid by the applicants be refunded. 
In the court’s opinion, it is permissible to claim a price reduction in the manner 
demanded by the applicants, that is to say, a refund of the entire amount paid to 
the defendant despite the fact that the applicants used the services offered by the 
defendant in full. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 3. 2024 – CASE C-469/24 
 
10  
The national court notes that the applicants are seeking the amount of PLN 8 696 
as compensation for material damage in connection with the improper 
performance of the contract by the defendant. That is the entire amount that the 
applicants paid to the defendant. Under national legislation, the court is bound by 
the facts of the case, but it is not bound by the legal basis indicated by the 
applicants for the claims asserted. Thus, the fact that the applicants refer to their 
claim as a claim for compensation for material damage does not prevent it from 
being treated as a claim for an appropriate price reduction. In the course of the 
proceedings, the court is required to independently assess what claim, in the legal 
sense, the applicants have brought. 
The second question also concerns the nature of claims for price reduction and 
compensation for material damage. In the opinion of the referring court, what will 
be useful for the resolution of the present case is the Court’s answer to the 
question of whether the purpose of the two claims is solely to restore the 
contractual balance between the parties lost due to the lack of conformity, or 
whether those claims, in order to ensure a high level of consumer protection, are 
also punitive and meant to deter. 
If it is assumed that the EU legislature, by introducing the directive, also aimed to 
deter organisers from allowing a lack of conformity, the fact that the consumers 
took advantage of the services offered would not make it impossible for the entire 
amount they paid to be refunded. In the opinion of the referring court, traders can 
be required to analyse the travel services market and analyse the presence of 
specific risks that cause a lack of conformity. Thus, a claim for an appropriate 
price reduction would result in full consumer protection by introducing penalties 
for a failure to conduct a proper analysis of the risk of a lack of conformity. 
The above circumstances are relevant to the proceedings in the present case, and 
the Court’s answer will contribute to a proper legal assessment of the facts. In 
particular, the court must analyse to what extent the defendant, as a trader, can be 
required to have anticipated the conflict between the Albanian government and the 
owners of hotels where services are provided to consumers who entered into a 
contract with the defendant. At first sight, since the conflict between the Albanian 
government and the owner of the hotel where the applicants were taking their 
holiday was featured in the media and was intensifying, in the court’s opinion the 
defendant, as a trader, should have analysed the potential consequences of that 
conflict in good time. Accepting that the price reduction claim is punitive and 
meant to deter will also be relevant from the perspective of the applicants’ 
demand for a refund of the entire amount paid for the trip to Albania. 
As regards the final question, the referring court seeks to determine whether a 
measure taken and implemented by public authorities can provide a basis for 
recognising the existence of extraordinary and unavoidable circumstances. 
According to the defendant, a measure taken by public authorities, which must be 
complied with, constitutes an extraordinary and unavoidable circumstance. Under 
the directive, unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances means a situation 
TULEKA 
 
11 
beyond the control of the party who invokes such a situation and the consequences 
of which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been 
taken. In the court’s view, a measure taken by public authorities is beyond the 
control of its addressee in the sense that the addressee is subordinate to the public 
authority. However, the court notes that the administrative procedure allows the 
addressee to participate in it and to submit appeals. The administrative procedure 
is also based on legal provisions and lasts for a specified amount of time. In 
addition, in recital 31 of the directive, the EU legislature indicates how it 
understands unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances. Those circumstances 
include, inter alia, warfare, terrorism, the outbreak of a serious disease at the 
travel destination, or natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes or weather 
conditions which make it impossible to travel safely to the destination as agreed in 
the package travel contract. In the court’s opinion, the above list precludes the 
assumption that a measure taken by public authorities, including a decision to 
demolish a hotel’s infrastructure, is an extraordinary and unavoidable 
circumstance. 
For all those reasons, the court has decided to refer the above questions to the 
Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.