CJEU CASE C-299/22 M.D. V UAB TEZ TOUR Union is to ensure compliance with the law by interpreting and applying the Agreements2. In other words, the Court of Justice uses the general principles of EU law to fill gaps in EU primary and secondary law, interpreting EU law provisions and national law provisions relating to EU law, but does not analyse or assess the specific facts of the case before the national court. We therefore consider that the Court of Justice's conclusion that "<...>a health crisis, such as the spread of COVID-19, may, in view of the serious risk it poses to human health, be regarded as having [significant effects on] the performance of the package, or <...>the carriage of passengers to the destination, within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302, irrespective of the fact that it is not necessarily such as to make such performance objectively impossible." (Judgement p. 53), is to be assessed as general in nature and does not eliminate the national court's obligation to assess it in the light of the facts of the case (it has already been pointed out that the Court's summary conclusions in Case c-299/22 concern a health crisis and the outbreak of COVID-19, whereas the national court in the present case is dealing with a situation which pre-dates the declaration of a quarantine and a global pandemic). Together with the analysed case No. c-299/22, which was joined with case No. c-584/22, it was held that "in order to determine whether "unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances" have arisen which has "[significant effects on] the performance of the package, or <...>the carriage of passengers to the destination" within the meaning of this provision, it is only necessary to take into account the situation prevailing at the time of the cancellation by the traveller. Thus, irrespective of the conclusions of the Court of Justice in case c-299/22 on the outbreak of COVID-19 and the health crisis, the circumstances on the date of termination of the contract are to be assessed in the cases before the national courts. The Court of Justice has stated, inter alia, that "for the purposes of assessing the condition relating to the existence of such effects, of personal factors relating to the individual situation of travellers, such as the fact of travelling with young children or of belonging to a higher-risk group, it should be emphasised that those consequences must be established objectively in the same way as the circumstances which caused them, referred to in paragraph 31 of this judgment." (Judgement p. 54). The Court of Justice has also stated that " in accordance with the objective nature of those effects, referred to 2https://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0013:0045:lt:P DF
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==