Case C-407/21, UFC– Que choisir and CLCV: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir), Consommation, logement et cadre de vie (CLCV) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Package travel and linked travel arrangements — Directive (EU) 2015/2302 — Article 12(2) to (4) — Termination of a package travel contract — Unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances — COVID-19 pandemic — Refund of payments made by the traveller concerned for a package — Refund in the form of a sum of money or equivalent refund in the form of a credit note (‘voucher’) — Obligation to provide that traveller with a refund not later than 14 days after the relevant contract is terminated — Temporary derogation from that obligation — Adjustment of the temporal effects of a decision which is taken in accordance with national law and which annuls national legislation that is contrary to that obligation)
Date: 2023-06-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: coronavirus disease, deadline for payment, epidemic, indemnification, package travel, provision of services, termination of a contract, traveller








C_2023261EN.01002001.xml










24.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/20






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir), Consommation, logement et cadre de vie (CLCV) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance
(Case C-407/21, (1) UFC– Que choisir and CLCV)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Package travel and linked travel arrangements - Directive (EU) 2015/2302 - Article 12(2) to (4) - Termination of a package travel contract - Unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances - COVID-19 pandemic - Refund of payments made by the traveller concerned for a package - Refund in the form of a sum of money or equivalent refund in the form of a credit note (‘voucher’) - Obligation to provide that traveller with a refund not later than 14 days after the relevant contract is terminated - Temporary derogation from that obligation - Adjustment of the temporal effects of a decision which is taken in accordance with national law and which annuls national legislation that is contrary to that obligation)
(2023/C 261/28)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir), Consommation, logement et cadre de vie (CLCV)

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 12(2) and (3) 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 Directive 90/314/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that where, following the termination of a package travel contract, the organiser of that package is required, under that provision, to provide the traveller concerned with a full refund of any payments made for the package, such a refund refers solely to the reimbursement of those payments in the form of a sum of money.










2.


Article 12(2) to (4) of Directive 2015/2302, read in conjunction with Article 4 of that directive, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which package travel organisers are temporarily released, in the context of the outbreak of a global health crisis preventing the performance of package travel contracts, from their obligation to provide the travellers concerned, not later than 14 days after a contract is terminated, with a full refund of any payments made under the terminated contract, including where such legislation is intended to prevent, due to the large number of anticipated reimbursement claims, the solvency of those travel organisers from being affected to the point of jeopardising their existence and thus to preserve the viability of the sector concerned.










3.


EU law, in particular the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as not allowing a national court, before which an action for the annulment of national legislation that is contrary to Article 12(2) to (4) of Directive 2015/2302 has been brought, to adjust the temporal effects of its decision annulling that national legislation.






(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.