CJEU CASE C-299/22 M.D. V UAB TEZ TOUR After the case was brought before the Supreme Court of Lithuania, it was suspended after the court decided to clarify the relevant issues relevant for the fair examination of the case, found in the 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 (hereinafter Travel directive) and issues related to its application. The Supreme Court of Lithuania has referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 1. Is an official warning by the authorities of the State of departure and/or arrival to refrain from unnecessary travel and/or the designation of the country of destination (and possibly also the country of departure) as a "risk area" required in order to be considered as being in the presence of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances at the place of destination, or in the immediate vicinity of the place of destination, within the meaning of first sentence of Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302? 2. In assessing whether, at the time of termination of the package travel contract, unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances exist at the place of destination or in the immediate vicinity of the place of destination, and whether they have a significant impact on the performance of the package: i) only objective circumstances are to be taken into account, namely, whether the serious effect on the performance of the package is limited to objective impossibility and must be interpreted as including only cases where performance of the contract becomes neither physically nor legally possible, or whether it nevertheless includes cases where performance of the contract is not impossible but (in this case - due to a substantiated fear of contracting COVID-19 infection) becomes complex and (or) economically ineffective (in the sense of the risks to travellers' safety, health and (or) life in the possibility to implement their travel package objectives); (ii) are subjective factors such as the presence of minor children travelling with the traveller, or the fact that the traveller is a member of a higher-risk group due to his age, state of health, etc., relevant? Does a traveller have the right to terminate a package travel contract if the pandemic and related circumstances, in the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==