to the situation foreseen in paragraph 2 of Article 12, even though it appears in Annex I, in Parts A, B and C: “Travellers may terminate the contract without paying any termination fee before the start of the package in the even of exceptional circumstances, for instance if there are serious security problems at the destination which are likely to affect the package.”. This is an omission at the level of the NPTD itself, which is somewhat inexplicable, as it constitutes a fundamental right of the traveller. This omission was corrected in the recent revision carried out under Directive (EU) 2026/1024. The relevant rules of Spanish law are Articles 153 to 160 of the General Consumer Protection Law, under which the NPTD was transposed, and the Code of Civil Procedure, which enshrines the principles of party autonomy and equivalence5. The traveller, not represented by a lawyer, filed a lawsuit against the organiser in the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.º 5 de Cartagena, alleging that his decision to cancel the package travel contract was made almost a month before the scheduled departure date, and constituted a case of force majeure due to the spread of the coronavirus in Asia. IV. QUESTIONS FROM THE SPANISH COURT ABOUT ARTICLE 5 NPTD Given this omission6, the Spanish judge questions the validity of Article 5 in light of Article 169 TFEU7, read in conjunction with Article 114 TFEU, asking whether this lack of information for the consumer in question makes it more difficult to defend their rights and interests, especially when, as in this case, they 5 Article 218, § 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: “Judicial decisions must be clear and precise and must address the requests and other claims of the parties duly presented in the proceedings. Such decisions include the requested declarations, the condemnation or acquittal of the defendant, and the resolution of all controversial aspects that were the subject of the discussion. The court, without departing from the request by resorting to factual or legal elements different from those alleged by the parties, decides in accordance with the provisions applicable to the proceedings, even if these have not been correctly cited or invoked by the parties in the litigation.”. 6 Article 5 does not require an organiser to inform the traveller that, in unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances, the package travel contract may be terminated and that a full refund of all payments made may be obtained. This right appears only in Annex I, Parts A, B and C. 7 This consumer contract law (the Community acquis) does not constitute a discrete and autonomous system of contract law rules and doctrines. Instead, it comprises a set of partial, fragmented and sectoral rules that coexist with the contract law of the Member States and are functionally designed to fulfil the objectives of the internal market. Thus, in a context where legislative power is limited to addressing specific cases in which obstacles to the domestic market have been identified, the development of a set of principles, certainly general principles, could be considered, at the very least, controversial and perhaps even constitutionally inappropriate. 40 CARLOS TORRES
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==