Case C-299/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas lodged on 4 May 2022 — M. D. v ‘Tez Tour’ UAB
Date: 2022-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, coronavirus disease, epidemic, package travel, provision of services, termination of a contract, travel agency, traveller








C_2022311EN.01000301.xml










16.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas lodged on 4 May 2022 — M. D. v ‘Tez Tour’ UAB
(Case C-299/22)
(2022/C 311/05)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: M. D.

Defendant:‘Tez Tour’ UAB
Third party: ‘Fridmis’ UAB

Questions referred







1.


Is it necessary for there to be an official warning of the authorities of the State of departure and/or arrival to refrain from unnecessary travel and/or classification of the country of destination (and possibly also the country of departure) as belonging to a risk area in order for it to be considered that unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances have occurred at the place of destination or its immediate vicinity within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 12(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302? (1)











2.


When assessing whether unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances exist at the place of destination or its immediate vicinity at the time of termination of a package travel contract and whether they significantly affect the performance of the package: (i) should account be taken only of objective circumstances, that is to say, is a significant effect on the performance of the package related only to objective impossibility and must it be interpreted as only covering cases where the performance of the contract becomes both physically and legally impossible, or does it nevertheless also cover cases where performance of the contract is not impossible but (in this case, owing to the well-founded fear of becoming infected with COVID-19) becomes complicated and/or economically inefficient (in terms of the safety of the travellers, risk to their health and/or life, the possibility of achieving the objectives of the holiday travel); (ii) are subjective factors relevant, such as adults travelling together with children under 14 years of age, or belonging to a higher-risk group owing to the traveller’s age or state of health, and so forth? Does the traveller have the right to terminate the package travel contract if, as a result of the pandemic and related circumstances, in the opinion of the average traveller, travel to and from the destination becomes unsafe, gives rise to inconvenience to the traveller or causes him or her to have a well-founded fear of a risk to health or of infection with a dangerous virus?










3.


Does the fact that the circumstances on which the traveller relies had already arisen or were at least already presupposed/likely when the trip was booked affect in some way the right to terminate the contract without paying a termination fee (for example by that right being denied, by stricter criteria being applied for assessing the negative effect on the performance of the package, and so forth)? When applying the criterion of reasonable foreseeability in the context of the pandemic, should account be taken of the fact that, although the WHO had already published information on the spread of the virus at the moment when the package travel contract was concluded, nevertheless the course and consequences of the pandemic were difficult to predict, there were no clear measures for managing and controlling the infection or sufficient data on the infection itself, and the increasing development of infections from the time of booking the trip until its termination was evident?










4.


When assessing whether unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances exist at the place of destination or its immediate vicinity at the time of termination of a package travel contract and whether they significantly affect the performance of the package, does the concept of ‘the place of destination or its immediate vicinity’ cover only the State of arrival or, taking into account the nature of the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstance, that is to say, a contagious viral infection, also the State of departure as well as points related to going on and returning from the trip (transfer points, certain means of transport, and so forth)?






(1)  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 (OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1).