CJEU CASE C-299/22 M.D. V UAB TEZ TOUR Justice in the present case, it was held in legal doctrine that the rule in question could not, by its construction, be interpreted extensively or as a gap in the law to be filled by the courts in their own competence while hearing cases, since the construction of the rule reflects the direct intention of the legislator to confer on the tourist such a right only in relation to the purpose of the journey (Philipp Binger. Der entschaedigungslose Ruecktritt gem. parag.651h Abs.3 BGB in der Corona- Pandemie//ReiseRecht aktuell, 5/2021, p. 208). However, the Court of Justice, which heard the case, interpreted Article 12(2) of the Travel Directive extensively (broadly), stating that there is no geographical limitation in that provision as regards the place where such circumstances must give rise to such an effect in order to be taken into account. On this basis, it follows that if the effects caused by unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances extend beyond the place of destination and reach, inter alia, the place of departure or return, or intermediate stops and travel connections, this may affect the performance of the package concerned and therefore such circumstances must be taken into account for the purposes of Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302. In answer to the fourth question referred for a preliminary ruling, the Court of Justice states that Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of determining whether unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances occurring at the place of destination, or in the immediate vicinity of it, have a " significant effect on the performance of the package or <...> significant effect on the carriage of passengers to the destination", account may also be taken of the effects occurring at the place of departure and at points connected with the departure for and return from the journey in question, in so far as they affect the performance of the package.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==