to interpreting Union law or verifying its validity, based on the facts provided by the national court. The Court of Justice stated that, in the present case, the classification of the facts as unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances, within the meaning of Article 12(2) NPTD10, is a matter for the national court’s autonomous assessment. As the national court did not consider it necessary to raise a preliminary question regarding the scope of that concept, the Court of Justice limited itself to considering the facts as indicated by the national judge, thereby declaring the request for a preliminary ruling admissible. Given that Article 5 actually stipulates that travellers must be informed of their right to cancel under Article 12(2), namely through the standardised information form11, the question of the validity of that provision concerning the body of pre-contractual information in light of Articles 169 and 114 TFEU does not arise. VI. PROCEDURAL AUTONOMY AND THE JUDGE’S EX OFFICIO ACTION In view of the fact that the NPTD was adopted on the basis of Article 114 TFEU to contribute to the objective of ensuring a high level of consumer protection12 provided for in Article 169(1) and (2)(a) TFEU, the second question has been reformulated to determine whether Article 12, paragraph 2, must be interpreted as precluding the application of provisions of national procedural law that enshrine the principles of party autonomy and consistency, according to which, when the termination of a package travel contract meets the requirements and gives rise to a full refund13, and the traveller submits to the national judge a request for reimbursement of only part of the price, the judge cannot grant a full refund ex officio. In accordance with the principle of the procedural autonomy of Member States, the procedural modalities applicable to the examination of the right of 10 Any situation beyond the control of the party invoking it, the consequences of which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken (Article 3, paragraph 13). 11 See numbers 35 and 36 regarding standardised information forms. 12 EU contract law primarily centers on consumer protection, which can sometimes conflict with other EU objectives like economic growth and market integration. Recent legislative efforts aim to make consumer protection compatible with economic goals, but defining and balancing a “high level” of protection remains challenging. 13 And without paying any termination fee, unlike paragraph 1 of Article 12. 42 CARLOS TORRES
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==