EN
C 441/4
Official Journal of the European Union
21.11.2022
Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service By order of 5 October 2022, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by FZ and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-618/20, FZ and Others v Commission (Case C-172/22 P) (2022/C 441/07) Language of the case: French Parties Appellants: FZ and Others (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat) Other party to the proceedings: European Commission By order of 5 October 2022, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 29 July 2022 — AQ v trendtours Touristik GmbH (Case C-511/22) (2022/C 441/08) Language of the case: German Referring court Landgericht Frankfurt am Main
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: AQ Defendant: trendtours Touristik GmbH
Questions referred 1.
Must the first sentence of Article 12(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (1) 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 (‘the Package Travel Directive’) be interpreted as providing for a further right of termination — in addition to that provided for in Article 12(1) of that directive — the legal consequences of which apply only if the traveller invokes that right in his or her declaration of termination? 2.
Must Article 12(2) of the Package Travel Directive be interpreted as meaning that an obligation to pay a termination fee does not cease to apply where the traveller does not state a reason in his or her declaration of termination of the package travel contract or states a reason which is not related to an unavoidable and extraordinary circumstance?
(1)
OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1.