Tour to allow him to use the sum paid to take another trip, later, when the health risk associated with the spread of COVID-19 would have decreased. Tez Tour refused to grant M. D.’s request. Consequently, M. D. brought an action before the competent national courts. Both first instance and appeal rejected the claims. The Supreme Court of Lithuania (Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teisma) observed that, for the purposes of resolving the dispute in the main proceedings, it was necessary to specify the conditions under which a traveler may rely on the existence of ‘unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances’, within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lithuanian Supreme Court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer to the EU Court of Justice four questions for preliminary rulings20. Three of them are of interest here, namely21: (1) the Court seeks to ascertain, in essence, whether Article 12(2) of PTD must be interpreted as meaning that the finding that ‘unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances’ have arisen at or in the immediate vicinity of the destination of a journey is subject to the condition that the competent authorities have issued an official recommendation advising travellers against travelling to the area concerned or an official decision classifying that area as a ‘risk area’. (2) the referring court refers to the possibility of taking into account, in assessing whether a package can be performed following the occurrence of ‘unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances’, within the meaning of Article 12(2) of PTD, the ‘efficiency’ of that package ‘in terms of the safety of the travellers, risk to their health and/or life, the possibility of achieving the objectives of the holiday travel’22. (3) the referring court questions the scope of the expression of circumstances ‘occurring at the place of destination or its immediate vicinity’ in Article 12(2) of PTD, and in particular whether that expression may also cover the place of departure and/or other places23. Let us now consider the Court of Justice’s second ruling (case C-546/22 of 4 October 2024). Here is a brief description of what happened. On 13 May 2020, 20 CJEU 29 February 2024, M.D. ‘Tez Tour’, C-299/22, § 26. 21 By the fourth question (No 3 in the judgment), the referring court seeks to ascertain, in essence, whether Article 12(2) of PTD must be interpreted as meaning that a situation which, on the date of conclusion of the package travel contract, was already known to the traveller concerned or was foreseeable for him or her, may be relied on by that traveller as ‘unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances’, within the meaning of that provision, taking into account, where appropriate, the evolving nature of that situation: CJEU C-299/22, § 26, 3) 22 CJEU C-299/22, § 45 ff. 23 CJEU C-299/22, § 84 ff. 25 TERMINATION OF THE PACKAGE TRAVEL CONTRACT DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==