Case C-469/24, Tuleka: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Rzeszowie (Poland) lodged on 3 July 2024 – B.F. (1), B.F. (2) v Z. sp. z o.o.
Date: 2024-07-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract terms, damages, package travel, reduced price, travel agency








C_202406074EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6074


21.10.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Rzeszowie (Poland) lodged on 3 July 2024 – B.F. (1), B.F. (2) v Z. sp. z o.o.


(Case C-469/24, Tuleka)
                (1)

(C/2024/6074)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Rzeszowie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: B.F. (1), B.F. (2)

Defendant: Z. sp. z o.o.

Questions referred







1.


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 (2) 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?










2.


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?










3.


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?










4.


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)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  
            OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6074/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)