buyer, or the unforeseeable and insurmountable act of a third party unrelated to the provision of the services provided for in the contract, or a case of force majeure.”. The travel agency argued that there was no causal link between the accident and its contractual obligations, claiming that the airport floor did not actively contribute to the incident. They cited the ISO 9001 certification as proof of their commitment to providing a safe environment at the airport. However, the court dismissed this argument, clarifying that under a strict liability regime, the victim only needs to demonstrate that the accident occurred while using a service provided by the agency. It does not require the victim to prove fault on the part of the service provider or to show that there was an active defect in the environment. The travel agency also claimed that the victim was at fault, arguing that the traveller was either imprudent or inattentive. However, the court found “no evidence in the file that clarifies the exact circumstances of the accident suffered by Mr. Y.” Therefore, Kalika Voyages “cannot assert that there was any inattention or imprudence on his part.” The travel agency was unable to prove that the traveller “deliberately walked on ground that he knew was dangerous.” Finally, the failure to engage a third party. The court noted that the travel agency “never called the … airport into the case to seek its responsibility in its management of floor cleaning in the presence of travellers.” V. EU LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE ON PRIVATE LAW The EU legislator has no competence to enact private law as such but only for specific purposes. The principle of conferral4 limits the purpose of EU private law legislation to regulating the establishment and functioning of the internal market. Because of this restriction, EU private law can only aim to achieve a few value-based objectives, such as non-discrimination, which primarily serves the goal of market integration rather than other purposes. 4 Article 5(1) of the Treaty on European Union states that the principle of conferral outlines the “limits of Union competences.” Article 5(2) elaborates on this essential principle, which aligns with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality: “Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States.” 196 CARLOS TORRES
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==