termination are the responsibility of the national courts14, and Union law does not, in principle, require the national judge to examine ex officio a ground relating to the violation of EU rules when doing so would require going beyond the limits of the dispute as defined by the parties. This limitation on the national judge’s power is justified by the principle that procedural initiative belongs to the parties. Consequently, this judge can act ex officio only in exceptional cases where the public interest requires his intervention (see, in this regard, Judgment of 17 December 2009, Martín Martín, C-227/08). Therefore, in the present case, the national judge must raise ex officio (power-duty) the violation of Article 12, § 2, that is, that the consumer, despite not having requested it, is entitled to a full refund of the payment made, especially since he is in court without a lawyer, in order to achieve a high level of consumer protection and the most uniform possible when purchasing a package. In line with the Lintner case, the ex officio examination depends on verifying the following requirements: 1) one of the parties to the organised travel contract in question must have initiated legal proceedings before the national court, and those proceedings must relate to that contract; 2) the right of withdrawal must be connected to the subject matter of the dispute, as defined by the parties; 3) the national court must have all the legal and factual elements necessary to assess whether the right of withdrawal can be invoked by the traveller in question; 4) the traveller must not have expressly stated to the national court his opposition to the application of the NPTD in relation to the right of withdrawal and the inherent full refund. As the European judges observe, the traveller in question does not invoke this provision when the requirements appear to be met, so it cannot be ruled out that he was unaware of the right of withdrawal under Article 12(2) and of the full refund provided for therein. This is sufficient for the national judge to apply the rule ex officio. When the four requirements set out above are met, the national judge is obliged to examine ex officio the right of withdrawal provided for in Article 12(2) and, in accordance with the forms provided for by national procedural rules, must fully inform the traveller of their right of withdrawal so that they may exercise it in the proceedings, and must give the opposing party the opportunity to comment. 14 Correspondingly, Article 24 provides only that Member States shall ensure the availability of adequate and effective means to guarantee compliance with their rules. 43 THE PRINCIPLE OF PARTY AUTONOMY GUIDING THE CIVIL PROCEDURE
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==