?
|
Naslov in reference |
Title and reference |
|
Sklepni predlogi generalne pravobranilke L. Medina, predstavljeni 21. septembra 2023. Sklepni predlogi generalne pravobranilke L. Medina, predstavljeni 21. septembra 2023. Oznaka ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2023:698 |
Opinion of Advocate General Medina delivered on 21 September 2023. Opinion of Advocate General Medina delivered on 21 September 2023. ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2023:698 |
|
Datumi |
Dates |
|
|
|
Drugi podatki |
Miscellaneous information |
|
|
|
Postopek |
Procedure |
|
|
|
Klasifikacije |
Classifications |
| |
|
Besedilo |
Text |
| Začasna izdaja | Provisional text |
| SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNE PRAVOBRANILKE | OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL |
| LAILE MEDINA, | MEDINA |
| predstavljeni 21. septembra 2023(1) | delivered on 21 September 2023(1) |
| Združeni zadevi C‑414/22 in C‑584/22 | Joined Cases C‑414/22 and C‑584/22 |
| DocLX Travel Events GmbH | DocLX Travel Events GmbH |
| proti | v |
| Verein für Konsumenteninformation | Verein für Konsumenteninformation |
| (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Oberster Gerichtshof (vrhovno sodišče, Avstrija)) | (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria)) |
| in | and |
| QM | QM |
| proti | v |
| Kiwi Tours GmbH | Kiwi Tours GmbH |
| (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Bundesgerichtshof (zvezno vrhovno sodišče, Nemčija)) | (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany)) |
| „Predhodno odločanje – Paketna potovanja in povezani potovalni aranžmaji – Direktiva (EU) 2015/2302 – Odstop od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju – Neizogibne in izredne okoliščine – Dogodki, ki nastanejo po odstopu od pogodbe, vendar pred izvedbo turističnega paketa – Predvidljivost ob odstopu od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju“ | (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Package travel and linked travel arrangements – Directive (EU) 2015/2302 – Termination of the package travel contract – Unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances – Events occurring after the termination but before the performance of the package – Foreseeability at the moment of termination of the travel contract) |
| I. Uvod | I. Introduction |
| 1. Svetovna zdravstvena organizacija (v nadaljevanju: SZO) je koronavirusno bolezen (COVID-19) 11. marca 2020 razglasila za pandemijo in opozorila, da svet „še nikoli prej ni doživel pandemije zaradi koronavirusa“.(2) „Nenadnost, obsežnost in resnost“(3) pandemije je po vsem svetu privedla do sprejetja omejevalnih ukrepov brez primere, ki so močno posegli na vsa področja družbene in gospodarske dejavnosti. Eden od najbolj prizadetih sektorjev je bil prav sektor potovanj. | 1. On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared the coronavirus of COVID-19 a pandemic and warned that the world had ‘never before seen a pandemic sparked by a coronavirus’. (2) The ‘suddenness, scale and severity’ (3) of the pandemic was reflected in the adoption of unprecedented restrictive measures on a global scale, which took a heavy toll in all fields of social and economic activity. The travel industry was one of the sectors most seriously affected. |
| 2. V tem okviru so številni potniki uveljavili pravico do odstopa od pogodb o paketnem potovanju brez plačila vsakršne odstopnine. To so storili še pred uradno razglasitvijo pandemije in zaprtjem meja, pri čemer so se sklicevali na obstoj „neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin“ v smislu člena 12(2) Direktive (EU) 2015/2302.(4) V združenih zadevah, ki sta predmet teh sklepnih predlogov in ju je treba obravnavati skupaj z zadevo C‑299/22, Tez Tour, v kateri tega dne prav tako predstavljam sklepne predloge, se postavlja več vprašanj v zvezi z razlago navedene določbe. Eno od teh vprašanj se nanaša na določitev trenutka, ki je odločilen za nastanek pravice do odstopa od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju, pri katerem ne nastane obveznost plačila vsakršne odstopnine. Pri obravnavi teh zadev bo treba razmisliti o tem, kako je mogoče v svetu, ki postaja vse bolj negotov in nepredvidljiv, v kar največji meri doseči ustrezno ravnovesje med visoko ravnijo varstva potrošnikov in konkurenčnostjo podjetij, za vzpostavitev katerega si prizadeva Direktiva 2015/2302. | 2. In that context, many travellers claimed the right to terminate their package travel contracts without paying any termination fee. They did this even prior to the pandemic being officially declared and the closing of borders, invoking the existence of ‘unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302. |
| II. Pravni okvir | |
| A. Pravo Unije | (4) The present Joined Cases – together with Case C‑299/22, |
| 3. V uvodni izjavi 31 Direktive 2015/2302 je navedeno: | Tez Tour |
| „(31) Potniki bi morali imeti tudi možnost, da kadar koli pred začetkom turističnega paketa odstopijo od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju proti plačilu ustrezne in upravičene odstopnine, pri čemer se upoštevajo pričakovani prihranki stroškov ter prihodki iz nadomestne uporabe potovalnih storitev. Prav tako bi morali imeti pravico do odstopa od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju brez plačila kakšne koli odstopnine, kadar bi neizogibne in izredne okoliščine znatno vplivale na izvedbo turističnega paketa. To lahko zajema na primer vojne, druge resne varnostne težave, kot je terorizem, znatno tveganje za zdravje ljudi, kot je izbruh resne bolezni v kraju potovanja, ali naravne nesreče, kot so poplave, potresi ali vremenske razmere, ki onemogočajo varno potovanje v kraj, določen v pogodbi o paketnem potovanju.“ | , in which my Opinion is being delivered today – raise various issues concerning the interpretation of that provision. One of those issues relates to the determination of the point in time which is decisive for the establishment of the right to terminate the package travel contract without incurring the obligation to pay any termination fee. The cases invite a reflection on how best to achieve the appropriate balance sought by Directive 2015/2302 between a high level of consumer protection and the competitiveness of businesses as the world becomes a more uncertain and unpredictable place. |
| 4. Člen 3 Direktive 2015/2302, naslovljen „Opredelitev pojmov“, v točki 12 določa: | II. Legal Framework |
| „V tej direktivi se uporabljajo naslednje opredelitve pojmov: | A. EU law |
| […] | 3. Recital 31 of Directive 2015/2302 states: |
| (12) ‚neizogibne in izredne okoliščine‘ pomeni okoliščine, na katere stranka, ki se sklicuje na takšno situacijo, ne more vplivati in katerih posledice bi bile kljub sprejetju vseh razumnih ukrepov neizbežne[.]“ | ‘(31) Travellers should also be able to terminate the package travel contract at any time before the start of the package in return for payment of an appropriate and justifiable termination fee, taking into account expected cost savings and income from alternative deployment of the travel services. They should also have the right to terminate the package travel contract without paying any termination fee where unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances will significantly affect the performance of the package. This may cover for example warfare, other serious security problems such as terrorism, significant risks to human health such as the outbreak of a serious disease at the travel destination, or natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes or weather conditions which make it impossible to travel safely to the destination as agreed in the package travel contract.’ |
| 5. Člen 12 Direktive 2015/2302, naslovljen „Odstop od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju in pravica do umika pred začetkom turističnega paketa“, v odstavkih od 1 do 3 določa: | 4. Article 3(12) of Directive 2015/2302, entitled ‘Definitions’, reads: |
| „1. Države članice zagotovijo, da lahko potnik kadar koli pred začetkom turističnega paketa odstopi od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju. Kadar potnik odstopi od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju v skladu s tem odstavkom, se lahko od njega zahteva, da organizatorju plača ustrezno in upravičeno odstopnino. Pogodba o paketnem potovanju lahko določa razumne standardne odstopnine, izračunane na podlagi tega, koliko časa pred začetkom turističnega paketa pride do odstopa od pogodbe, ter pričakovanih prihrankov stroškov in prihodkov iz nadomestne uporabe potovalnih storitev. Če standardnih odstopnin ni, znesek odstopnine ustreza ceni turističnega paketa, od katere se odštejejo prihranki stroškov in prihodki iz nadomestne uporabe potovalnih storitev. Organizator na zahtevo potnika predloži obrazložitev zneska odstopnin. | ‘For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions apply: |
| 2. Ne glede na odstavek 1 ima potnik v primeru neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin v kraju potovanja ali neposredni bližini, ki znatno vplivajo na izvedbo turističnega paketa, ali okoliščin, ki znatno vplivajo na prevoz potnikov v kraj potovanja, pravico, da pred začetkom turističnega paketa odstopi od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju brez plačila vsakršne odstopnine. V primeru odstopa od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju v skladu s tem odstavkom je potnik upravičen do celotnega povračila vseh plačil za turistični paket, ni pa upravičen do dodatnega nadomestila. | … |
| 3. Organizator lahko odstopi od pogodbe in potniku zagotovi celotno povračilo vseh plačil za turistični paket, ni pa odgovoren za dodatno nadomestilo, če: | (12) “unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances” means a situation beyond the control of the party who invokes such a situation and the consequences of which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken [.]’ |
| […] | 5. Article 12 of Directive 2015/2302, entitled ‘Termination of the package travel contract and the right of withdrawal before the start of the package’, provides, in paragraphs 1 to 3: |
| (b) organizator ne more izvesti pogodbe zaradi neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin ter potnika pred začetkom turističnega paketa brez nepotrebnega odlašanja obvesti o odstopu od pogodbe.“ | ‘1. Member States shall ensure that the traveller may terminate the package travel contract at any time before the start of the package. Where the traveller terminates the package travel contract under this paragraph, the traveller may be required to pay an appropriate and justifiable termination fee to the organiser. The package travel contract may specify reasonable standardised termination fees based on the time of the termination of the contract before the start of the package and the expected cost savings and income from alternative deployment of the travel services. In the absence of standardised termination fees, the amount of the termination fee shall correspond to the price of the package minus the cost savings and income from alternative deployment of the travel services. At the traveller’s request the organiser shall provide a justification for the amount of the termination fees. |
| 6. Člen 23 Direktive 2015/2302, naslovljen „Obvezna narava te direktive“, v odstavkih 2 in 3 določa: | 2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the traveller shall have the right to terminate the package travel contract before the start of the package without paying any termination fee in the event of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances occurring at the place of destination or its immediate vicinity and significantly affecting the performance of the package, or which significantly affect the carriage of passengers to the destination. In the event of termination of the package travel contract under this paragraph, the traveller shall be entitled to a full refund of any payments made for the package, but shall not be entitled to additional compensation. |
| „2. Potniki se ne morejo odpovedati pravicam, ki so jim dodeljene z nacionalnimi predpisi za prenos te direktive. | 3. The organiser may terminate the package travel contract and provide the traveller with a full refund of any payments made for the package, but shall not be liable for additional compensation, if: |
| 3. Nobena pogodbena ureditev ali izjava potnika, s katero se neposredno ali posredno bodisi odpove pravicam, ki so mu dodeljene na podlagi te direktive, ali jih omejuje ali se skuša izogniti uporabi te direktive, za potnika ni zavezujoča.“ | … |
| B. Nacionalno pravo | (b) the organiser is prevented from performing the contract because of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances and notifies the traveller of the termination of the contract without undue delay before the start of the package.’ |
| 1. Avstrijsko pravo | 6. Article 23 of Directive 2015/2302, entitled ‘Imperative nature of the Directive’, states, in paragraphs 2 and 3: |
| 7. Člen 3 Pauschalreisegesetz (zakon o paketnih potovanjih, BGBl. I, 2017/50) določa: | ‘2. Travellers may not waive the rights conferred on them by the national measures transposing this Directive. |
| „Dogovori, ki v škodo potnika odstopajo od določb tega zveznega zakona, so neveljavni.“ | 3. Any contractual arrangement or any statement by the traveller which directly or indirectly waives or restricts the rights conferred on travellers pursuant to this Directive or aims to circumvent the application of this Directive shall not be binding on the traveller.’ |
| 8. Člen 10(2) zakona o paketnih potovanjih določa: | B. National law |
| „Ne glede na pravico do odstopa od pogodbe iz odstavka 1 lahko potnik v primeru neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin v kraju potovanja ali neposredni bližini, ki znatno vplivajo na izvedbo turističnega paketa ali na prevoz potnikov v kraj potovanja, pred začetkom turističnega paketa odstopi od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju brez plačila nadomestila. Potnik je v primeru odstopa od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju v skladu s tem odstavkom upravičen do celotnega povračila vseh plačil za turistični paket, ni pa upravičen do dodatnega nadomestila.“ | 1. Austrian law |
| 2. Nemško pravo | 7. Paragraph 3 of the Pauschalreisegesetz (Law on Package Travel, BGBl. I, 2017/50) states: |
| 9. Člen 651h Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (civilni zakonik), naslovljen „Odstop pred začetkom turističnega paketa“, določa: | ‘In so far as agreements deviate from the provisions of the present Federal Law to the detriment of the traveller, they shall be without effect.’ |
| „1. Potnik lahko pred začetkom turističnega paketa kadar koli odstopi od pogodbe. Če potnik odstopi od pogodbe, organizator potovanja ni več upravičen do dogovorjene cene turističnega paketa. Vendar lahko organizator potovanja zahteva primerno nadomestilo. | 8. Article 10(2) of the Law on Package Travel provides: |
| 2. V pogodbi se lahko, tudi s splošnimi pogodbenimi pogoji, določijo primerni pavšalni zneski nadomestila, ki temeljijo na naslednjih merilih: | ‘Without prejudice to the right of termination provided for in subparagraph 1, the traveller may terminate the package travel contract before the start of the package without paying any compensation in the event of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances occurring at the place of destination or its immediate vicinity and significantly affecting the performance of the package, or which significantly affect the carriage of passengers to the destination. If the traveller terminates the package travel contract under this subparagraph, he or she shall be entitled to a full refund of any payments made for the package, but shall not be entitled to additional compensation.’ |
| 1. obdobje med izjavo o odstopu in začetkom turističnega paketa, | 2. German law |
| 2. stroški, za katere je mogoče pričakovati, da organizatorju ne bodo nastali, in | 9. Paragraph 651h of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Civil Code), entitled ‘Rescission before the start of the package’, states: |
| 3. pričakovani prihodki iz nadomestne uporabe potovalnih storitev. | ‘1. Before the start of the package, the traveller may rescind the contract at any time. If the traveller rescinds the contract, then the organiser no longer has a claim to the price agreed for the package. However, the organiser may demand reasonable compensation. |
| Če pavšalni zneski nadomestila v pogodbi niso določeni, se višina nadomestila določi na podlagi cene potovanja, od katere se odšteje vrednost stroškov, ki organizatorju potovanja ne bodo nastali, ter prihodek, ki ga ustvari z nadomestno uporabo potovalnih storitev. Organizator potovanja mora na zahtevo potnika utemeljiti višino nadomestila. | 2. Reasonable standard compensation amounts may be specified in the contract, also by way of standard contractual terms, that are based on the following criteria: |
| 3. Z odstopanjem od odstavka 1, tretji stavek, organizator potovanja ne more zahtevati nadomestila, če v kraju potovanja ali njegovi neposredni bližini nastopijo neizogibne in izredne okoliščine, ki znatno vplivajo na izvedbo paketnega potovanja ali prevoz oseb v kraj potovanja. V smislu tega podpoglavja so okoliščine neizogibne in izredne, če stranka, ki se nanje sklicuje, ne more vplivati nanje in če se njihovim posledicam ne bi bilo mogoče izogniti, tudi če bi bili sprejeti vsi razumni ukrepi.“ | 1. the period between the declaration of rescission and the start of the package; |
| III. Kratka predstavitev dejanskega stanja in postopkov v glavni stvari ter vprašanja za predhodno odločanje | 2. the expenses the organiser is expected to save; and |
| A. Zadeva C‑414/22 | 3. the expected gains resulting from an alternative deployment of the travel services. |
| 10. FM, potrošnik, je januarja 2020 pri toženi stranki, to je družbi DocLX, ki je organizator potovanj, rezerviral maturantsko potovanje na Hrvaško. Potovanje naj bi potekalo od 27. junija do 3. julija 2020. Vključevalo je prevoz v kraj potovanja in vrnitev v kraj odhoda ter je bilo zasnovano kot potovanje – zabava z velikim številom mladih udeležencev in razposajenim zabavanjem. | Where no standard compensation amounts are specified in the contract, the amount of the compensation is determined by the price of the package less the value of the expenses saved by the organiser as well as less what the organiser gains by deploying the travel services otherwise. At the request of the traveller, the organiser is under the obligation to cite the grounds for the amount of the compensation. |
| 11. Skupna cena paketnega potovanja, ki jo je FM v celoti plačal vnaprej, je znašala 787 EUR. | 3. By way of derogation from subsection 1 sentence 3, the organiser may not claim compensation if unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances occurring at the place of destination or its immediate vicinity significantly affect the performance of the package or the carriage of passengers to the destination. Circumstances are unavoidable and exceptional within the meaning of this subtitle if they are not subject to the control of the party who invokes such a situation and if their consequences could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.’ |
| 12. Avstrijsko ministrstvo za zunanje zadeve je 13. marca 2020 razglasilo nevarnost potovanja 4. stopnje za vse države sveta ter potnike s tem pozvalo, naj preložijo vsa nenujna potovanja ali izkoristijo možnosti za odpoved potovanj. | III. Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings and the questions referred |
| 13. Družba DocLX je 21. aprila 2020 FM obvestila, da brezplačna odpoved paketnega potovanja v zadevnem trenutku ni bila mogoča in da bi bila mogoča le na podlagi zunanjih okoliščin, kakršna je na primer razglašena nevarnost potovanja 6. stopnje, pri čemer bi bilo potovanje tudi v tem primeru mogoče odpovedati šele sedem dni pred načrtovanim začetkom turističnega paketa. Kljub temu je družba DocLX ponudila možnost odpovedi potovanja proti plačilu znižane pristojbine za odpoved, ki jo je FM sprejel. Družba DocLX je nato FM povrnila akontacijo, ki jo je plačal, pri čemer je za stroške odpovedi zadržala znesek v višini 227,68 EUR. | A. Case C‑414/22 |
| 14. Paketno potovanje nazadnje ni bilo izvedeno. | 10. In January 2020, FM, a consumer, booked a school-leavers’ trip to Croatia with the defendant, DocLX, a tour operator. The trip was to take place from 27 June to 3 July 2020. It included transport to the destination and back to the place of departure, and was designed as a festive trip involving a large number of young participants and lively celebrations. |
| 15. FM je zahtevek za povračilo odstopnine odstopil je Verein für Konsumenteninformation (združenje za informiranje potrošnikov, v nadaljevanju: združenje), avstrijskemu združenju potrošnikov. S tem zahtevkom se je od organizatorja potovanja zahtevalo plačilo zadržanega zneska v višini 227,68 EUR, pri čemer je bilo navedeno, da je bil FM ob sklenitvi dogovora o odpovedi upravičen do brezplačnega odstopa od pogodbe o potovanju. Navedeno je bilo tudi, da bi bilo treba šteti, da dogovor, s katerim je potnik odpovedal potovanje proti plačilu znižane odstopnine, v skladu s členom 10(2) avstrijskega zakona o paketnih potovanjih ni veljaven, saj je bil za potnika manj ugoden. | 11. The total price of the package tour was EUR 787, which FM paid in full in advance. |
| 16. Družba DocLX je zahtevku nasprotovala, pri čemer je trdila, da aprila 2020 še ni bilo mogoče predvideti, da potovanja zaradi neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin junija 2020 dejansko ne bo mogoče izvesti. Zato je navedla, da v času dogovora o višini odstopnine (oziroma izjave o odstopu od pogodbe) ni bilo nobene možnosti za brezplačno odpoved potovanja. | 12. On 13 March 2020, the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a level-4 travel warning for all countries worldwide, urging to postpone any travel that was not absolutely necessary or making use of cancellation options. |
| 17. Čeprav je prvostopenjsko sodišče, ki je v bistvu sprejelo trditve družbe DocXL, tožbeni zahtevek združenja zavrnilo, pa je pritožbeno sodišče to sodbo spremenilo in zahtevku ugodilo, saj je ugotovilo, da dogovorjenega maturantskega potovanja v času odstopa od pogodbe zaradi pandemije COVID-19 ni bilo mogoče izvesti. | 13. On 21 April 2020, DocLX informed FM that the free of charge termination of the package was not possible at that point in time and would be possible only on the basis of external circumstances, such as a level-6 travel warning, and even then only seven days before the planned start of the package. However, DocLX offered the termination of the trip for a reduced termination fee, which FM accepted. DocLX subsequently reimbursed FM for the deposit he had paid, while withholding an amount of EUR 227.68 as cancellation costs. |
| 18. Predložitveno sodišče navaja, da je rešitev spora o glavni stvari odvisna od razlage člena 12(2) Direktive 2015/2302. Natančneje, rešitev spora je odvisna od odgovora na vprašanje, ali za nastanek pravice do brezplačnega odstopa od pogodbe o potovanju zadostuje, da so neizogibne in izredne okoliščine po odstopu od pogodbe dejansko nastopile, in sicer – gledano | 14. The package travel was ultimately not realised. |
| ex post facto | 15. The Verein für Konsumenteninformation (Association for Consumer Information; ‘the Verein’), an Austrian consumer association, was assigned FM’s claim for reimbursement of the termination fee. That claim sought the payment, from the organiser, of the withheld amount of EUR 227.68, arguing that, at the time of the agreement on cancellation, FM was entitled to terminate the travel contract free of charge. It submitted that the agreement by which the traveller had cancelled his trip for a reduced termination fee should be considered as ineffective under Article 10(2) of the (Austrian) Law on Package Travel as it was less favourable for him. |
| – pred začetkom turističnega paketa (do najpoznejšega možnega trenutka za odstop od pogodbe o potovanju), ali pa je za nastanek te pravice odločilno to, da so bile take okoliščine – gledano | 16. DocLX opposed the claim, arguing that it was not yet foreseeable in April 2020 whether unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances would actually make it impossible to perform the package in June 2020. Consequently, it submitted that there was no possibility of termination free of charge at the time of the agreement concerning the amount of the termination fee (or the declaration of termination). |
| ex ante | 17. While the court of first instance dismissed the Verein’s claim, essentially following DocLX’s arguments, the court of appeal reversed that judgment and upheld the claim, holding that, at the time of termination, a school-leavers’ trip such as the one agreed could not take place due to the COVID-19 pandemic. |
| – verjetne ali pričakovane. | 18. The referring court notes that the outcome of the dispute in the main proceedings depends on the interpretation of Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302. More specifically, it depends on whether, in order to establish the right to terminate the travel contract free of charge, it is sufficient that unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances actually occurred after the termination of the contract – considered |
| 19. Predložitveno sodišče ugotavlja, da Direktiva 2015/2302 ne določa specifičnega praga stopnje verjetnosti nastanka „neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin“ ali rokov, do katerih lahko potnik brezplačno odstopi od pogodbe. Meni, da sta mogoči tako naknadna kot predhodna presoja teh okoliščin. V skladu z naknadno presojo naj bi moral potnik vselej imeti pravico do brezplačnega odstopa od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju, če take neizogibne in izredne okoliščine pozneje dejansko nastopijo in bi znatno vplivale na izvedbo paketnega potovanja, od katerega je potnik zaradi teh okoliščin odstopil, ali to izvedbo sploh onemogočile. V tem primeru naj ne bi bilo bistveno, ali je potnik podal nepravilno predhodno presojo položaja in od pogodbe odstopil „prezgodaj“. Nasprotno pa naj bi v skladu s predhodno presojo veljalo, da je objektivni položaj, ki obstaja v trenutku, v katerem potnik poda izjavo o odstopu, edini odločilen dejavnik v tem smislu. V tem primeru naj morebitno poznejše izboljšanje nevarnega položaja ne bi negativno vplivalo na pravico do odstopa. Če pa bi potnik ob odstopu od pogodbe nepravilno (preveč „previdno“) presodil nevarnost zadevnega položaja, naj bi moral še vedno plačati odstopnino, tudi če bi se pozneje dejansko izkazalo, da je izvedba turističnega paketa nerazumna ali nemogoča. | ex post facto |
| 20. V teh okoliščinah je Oberster Gerichtshof (vrhovno sodišče, Avstrija) prekinilo odločanje in Sodišču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vprašanji: | – by the time of the start of the package (at the latest possible time of termination of the travel contract) or whether it is decisive that such circumstances, considered |
| „1. Ali je treba člen 12(2) [Direktive 2015/2302] razlagati tako, da je potnik – ne glede na to, kdaj je podal izjavo o odstopu od pogodbe – vsekakor upravičen do brezplačnega odstopa od pogodbe tedaj, če so neizogibne in izredne okoliščine, ki znatno vplivajo na izvedbo turističnega paketa, ob (načrtovanem) začetku potovanja dejansko nastopile? | ex ante |
| 2. Ali je treba člen 12(2) [Direktive 2015/2302] razlagati tako, da je potnik upravičen do brezplačnega odstopa od pogodbe že tedaj, če je bilo v času, ko je podal izjavo o odstopu od pogodbe, mogoče računati z nastopom neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin?“ | , were likely or to be expected. |
| 21. Pisna stališča so predložile tožeča stranka v glavni stvari, avstrijska in grška vlada ter Evropska komisija. Sklep o združitvi postopka na podlagi člena 54 Poslovnika v tej zadevi in v zadevi C‑584/22 je bil sprejet 28. marca 2023. Stranke v postopkih v glavni stvari, grška vlada in Evropska komisija so na skupni obravnavi v zadevah C‑414/22 in C‑584/22 ter v zadevi C‑299/22, Tez Tour, ki je potekala 7. junija 2023, ustno predstavile stališča. | 19. The referring court notes that Directive 2015/2302 does not provide for a specific threshold of probability for the occurrence of the ‘unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances’ or time limits for the traveller to terminate the contract free of charge. It considers that both an |
| B. Zadeva C‑584/22 | ex post |
| 22. QM je januarja 2020 zase in za svojo soprogo pri organizatorju potovanj, družbi Kiwi Tours, rezerviral potovanje na Japonsko, ki naj bi se izvedlo od 3. do 12. aprila 2020. Skupna cena paketnega potovanja je znašala 6148 EUR, pri čemer je QM plačal akontacijo v višini 1230 EUR. | and an |
| 23. QM je po vrsti ukrepov, ki so jih japonski organi sprejeli v zvezi s koronavirusom, z dopisom z dne 1. marca 2020 zaradi tveganja za zdravje, ki ga je pomenil koronavirus, odstopil od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju. | ex ante |
| 24. Družba Kiwi Tours je nato izdala račun zaradi odstopa za dodaten znesek 307 EUR, ki ga je QM plačal. | assessment of those circumstances can be envisaged. According to the |
| 25. Japonska je 26. marca 2020 prepovedala vstop v državo. QM je na podlagi tega zahteval vračilo plačanih zneskov, kar pa je družba Kiwi Tours zavrnila. | ex post |
| 26. Amtsgericht (okrajno sodišče, Nemčija) je družbi Kiwi Tours na podlagi zahtevka QM naložilo vračilo plačanih zneskov, vendar je Landgericht (deželno sodišče, Nemčija), pri katerem je družba Kiwi Tours vložila pritožbo, ta tožbeni zahtevek zavrnilo. Landgericht (deželno sodišče) je navedlo, da ob odstopu od pogodbe ni bilo mogoče šteti, da so obstajale neizogibne in izredne okoliščine. QM naj torej na podlagi predhodne presoje ne bi imel pravice do odstopa od pogodbe brez plačila odstopnine. | assessment, a traveller should always be entitled to terminate a package travel contract free of charge if those circumstances do in fact occur subsequently and would have significantly affected or made it impossible to perform the package contract which the traveller terminated due to those circumstances. In that case, it would not matter if the traveller made an incorrect |
| 27. QM je zoper sodbo Landgericht (deželno sodišče) vložil revizijo pri Bundesgerichtshof (zvezno sodišče, Nemčija). Predložitveno sodišče ugotavlja, da je pritožbeno sodišče pravilno štelo, da so pogoji, ki urejajo pravico do brezplačnega odstopa od pogodbe, izpolnjeni, kadar je še pred začetkom turističnega paketa mogoče ugotoviti, da obstajajo izredne in nepredvidljive okoliščine. Ta ocena naj bi zajemala tudi presojo vprašanja, ali so podane izredne okoliščine, zaradi katerih je znaten vpliv na potovanje ali prevoz potnikov v kraj potovanja zelo verjeten. Po mnenju predložitvenega sodišča tak znaten vpliv obstaja, če se ugotovi, da bi izvedba turističnega paketa pomenila znatno ali nerazumno tveganje za pravno varovane interese potnika. | ex ante |
| 28. Predložitveno sodišče kljub temu meni, da je pritožbeno sodišče v okviru presoje, ki jo je opravilo v zvezi z obstojem takega tveganja v obravnavani zadevi, napačno uporabilo pravo. Pritožbeno sodišče naj bi namreč moralo obravnavati vprašanje, ali sta bila neobičajna narava in število omejevalnih ukrepov že ob odstopu od pogodbe zadostna indica za veliko nevarnost okužbe. Zato naj ne bi bilo mogoče izključiti, da bi pritožbeno sodišče, če bi to nevarnost pravilno presodilo, ugotovilo, da je bilo potovanje na Japonsko ob odstopu od pogodbe povezano z resnimi in izjemno velikimi tveganji za zdravje ter da od preudarnega potnika ni bilo mogoče razumno pričakovati, da bo taka tveganja sprejel. | assessment of the situation and terminated the contract ‘too early’. By contrast, according to the |
| 29. Vendar predložitveno sodišče opozarja, da v skladu z nemškim postopkovnim pravom ne more meritorno odločati o tem vidiku in da bi moralo zadevo načeloma vrniti v razsojanje pritožbenemu sodišču. Po drugi strani pa naj bi lahko brez nadaljnjih ugotovitev o dejstvih samo odločilo o pritožbi in jo zavrnilo, če so za presojo pravice do brezplačnega odstopa od pogodbe upoštevne tudi okoliščine, ki so nastale šele po odstopu. Nesporno naj bi namreč bilo, da potovanja zaradi prepovedi vstopa, ki jo je Japonska zaradi širjenja koronavirusa odredila 26. marca 2020, ni bilo mogoče izvesti. | ex ante |
| 30. Predložitveno sodišče se nagiba k mnenju, da je treba upoštevati okoliščine, ki so nastale šele po odstopu. V zvezi s tem navaja, prvič, da člen 12(2) Direktive 2015/2302 formalno določa primer odpovedi, ki se razlikuje od primera iz odstavka 1 tega člena in se uporablja, kadar ob odstopu v nasprotju s presojo potnika ni nobenih neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin, ki bi znatno vplivale na izvedbo turističnega paketa. Člen 12(2) naj bi bil v bistvu pomemben le za pravne posledice odstopa, ki pa niso odvisne od razlogov, s katerimi je potnik utemeljil odstop od pogodbe o potovanju, ampak zgolj od dejanskega obstoja okoliščin, ki znatno vplivajo na izvedbo potovanja. | assessment, the only decisive factor is the objective situation at the time of the declaration of termination. In that case, any subsequent improvements in the risk situation would not be detrimental to the right of termination. However, if the traveller makes an incorrect (‘overly cautious’) assessment of the risk situation at the time of termination, he or she would still be obliged to pay cancellation fees, even if subsequently it does in fact become unreasonable or impossible to perform the package. |
| 31. Drugič, predložitveno sodišče meni, da bi namen odstopnine privedel do enake ugotovitve ne glede na to, ali jo je treba šteti za dajatev, podobno odškodnini, ali za nadomestilo za plačilo turističnega paketa. Če bi bilo treba odstopnino šteti za dajatev, podobno odškodnini, predložitveno sodišče opozarja, da je treba pri določitvi škode, ki jo je treba povrniti, načeloma upoštevati celoten razvoj škode, od nastanka dogodka, na katerem temelji zahtevek, do končne odločitve o zahtevku. To naj bi pomenilo argument v prid domnevi, da organizatorju ni nastala škoda, če se po odstopu izkaže, da je bil podan znaten vpliv na izvedbo potovanja, zaradi katerega bi moral organizator, tudi če potnik ne bi odstopil od pogodbe, vrniti celotno ceno turističnega paketa. Če pa je treba odstopnino šteti za nadomestilo za plačilo turističnega paketa, ki nadomesti prvotno dolgovani znesek za turistični paket, naj bi bilo treba prav tako upoštevati tudi poznejše dogodke, ki povzročijo izgubo pravice organizatorja do povračila cene turističnega paketa. Predložitveno sodišče namreč meni, da pravica do nadomestnega plačila obstaja le v višini, v kateri bi obstajala tudi v primeru, da potnik ne bi odstopil od pogodbe o potovanju. | 20. In those circumstances, the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: |
| 32. Nazadnje, predložitveno sodišče ugotavlja, da bi moral tudi vidik varstva potrošnikov pomeniti argument v prid upoštevanju poznejšega dogajanja. Po mnenju predložitvenega sodišča je za visoko raven varstva treba zagotoviti, da potniku tudi v primeru zgodnjega odstopa od pogodbe o potovanju ni treba plačati za organizacijo potovanja, za katero se v nadaljevanju izkaže znaten vpliv na njegovo izvedbo. V nasprotnem primeru naj bi bili lahko potniki v negotovih položajih odvrnjeni od pravočasnega uveljavljanja pravice do odstopa od pogodbe o potovanju, čeprav je mogoče ob zgodnjem odstopu pričakovati, da bo odstopnina dejansko nizka. To po mnenju predložitvenega sodišča zmanjšuje tveganje ne le za potnika, ampak tudi za organizatorja, ki dobi informacijo že v zgodnji fazi in ima več časa za prihranek stroškov ali drugačno uporabo potovalnih storitev. Če pa bi bila pravica do brezplačne odpovedi odvisna od trenutka odpovedi, naj bi to spodbudilo zlasti špekulativno ravnanje organizatorja. Po mnenju predložitvenega sodišča bi lahko tak pristop organizatorja silil k temu, da pogodb o potovanju ne bi odpovedal do tik pred začetkom potovanja, da bi tako čim več potnikov spodbudil k odstopu od pogodbe na način, ki bi bil zanj finančno ugodnejši. | ‘(1) Must Article 12(2) of [Directive 2015/2302] be interpreted as meaning that the traveller – irrespective of the time of his or her declaration of termination – is in any event entitled to terminate a package free of charge if the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances significantly affecting the package did in fact occur at the time of the (scheduled) start of the package? |
| 33. Predložitveno sodišče meni, da navedenih trditev ni mogoče ovreči s sklicevanjem na najdaljši rok za vračilo, ki je 14 dni po odstopu od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju, kot je določeno v členu 12(4) Direktive 2015/2302. Natančneje, to sodišče meni, da na podlagi navedene določbe ni mogoče sklepati, da mora biti višina odstopnine takrat že dokončno določena in da so poznejši zahtevki za doplačilo ali vračilo izključeni. | (2) Must Article 12(2) of [Directive 2015/2302] be interpreted as meaning that the traveller is already entitled to terminate a package free of charge if the occurrence of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances was to be expected at the time of the declaration of termination?’ |
| 34. V teh okoliščinah je Bundesgerichtshof (zvezno vrhovno sodišče) prekinilo odločanje in Sodišču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vprašanje: | 21. Written observations were submitted by the applicant in the main proceedings, the Austrian and Greek Governments as well as the European Commission. The decision to join proceedings under Article 54 of the Rules of Procedure in the present case and in Case C‑584/22 was taken on 28 March 2023. The parties in the main proceedings, the Greek Government and the European Commission presented oral argument at the joint hearing, which was held for Cases C‑414/22 and C‑584/22, together with Case C‑299/22, |
| „Ali je treba člen 12(2) [Direktive (EU) 2015/2302] razlagati tako, da so za presojo upravičenosti odstopa od pogodbe odločilne le tiste neizogibne, izredne okoliščine, ki so v času odstopa že obstajale, ali pa tako, da je treba upoštevati tudi neizogibne, izredne okoliščine, ki dejansko nastanejo po odstopu, vendar še pred načrtovanim začetkom potovanja?“ | Tez Tour |
| 35. Pisna stališča so predložili QM, grška vlada in Evropska komisija. Stranke v postopkih v glavni stvari, grška vlada in Evropska komisija so na skupni obravnavi v zadevah C‑414/22 in C‑584/22 ter v zadevi C‑299/22, Tez Tour, ki je potekala 7. junija 2023, ustno predstavile stališča. | , on 7 June 2023. |
| IV. Presoja | B. Case C‑584/22 |
| 36. Predložitveni sodišči z dvema vprašanjema v zadevi C‑414/22 in vprašanjem v zadevi C‑584/22 v bistvu sprašujeta, ali je treba člen 12(2) Direktive 2015/2302 razlagati tako, da treba presojo nastopa neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin, ki znatno vplivajo na izvedbo turističnega paketa, na podlagi katerega ima potnik pravico, da od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju odstopi brez plačila vsakršne odstopnine, opraviti zgolj ob odstopu od pogodbe, ali pa je treba to določbo razlagati tako, da je treba upoštevati tudi neizogibne in izredne okoliščine, ki dejansko nastopijo po odstopu od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju, vendar še pred začetkom paketnega potovanja. | 22. In January 2020, QM booked a trip to Japan for himself and his wife with the tour operator Kiwi Tours from 3 to 12 April 2020. The total price of the package tour was EUR 6 148, as part of which QM paid a deposit of EUR 1 230. |
| 37. Predložitveno sodišče v zadevi C‑414/22 meni, da bi bilo na podlagi člena 12(2) Direktive (EU) 2015/2302 mogoče sklepati, da bi morala pravica do brezplačnega odstopa od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju obstajati vedno, če neizogibne in izredne okoliščine pozneje dejansko nastopijo in če bi občutno vplivale na izvedbo turističnega paketa ali bi njegovo izvedbo onemogočile. Vendar to sodišče meni, da je prav tako mogoče trditi, da je za obstoj te pravice odločilen le objektivni položaj, ki obstaja v trenutku, v katerem je podana izjava o odstopu od pogodbe. Predložitveno sodišče v zadevi C‑584/22 meni, da je za presojo morebitnega obstoja znatnih in nerazumnih tveganj za zdravje ali druge pravno varovane interese potnika treba opraviti oceno, v okviru katere je upoštevno obdobje pred začetkom izvajanja pogodbe o paketnem potovanju. Kljub temu meni, da so lahko za tako presojo upoštevne tudi okoliščine, ki nastopijo po odstopu od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju, vendar pred načrtovanim potovanjem. | 23. Following a series of measures adopted by the Japanese authorities in relation to the coronavirus, QM, by letter of 1 March 2020, terminated the package contract due to the health risk posed by the coronavirus. |
| 38. Iz predlogov za sprejetje predhodne odločbe je razvidno, da se glavno vprašanje, ki se postavlja v obeh zadevah, nanaša na obstoj samostojne pravice do odstopa od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju, ki temelji zgolj na dejanskem nastanku neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin, ki na dan potovanja znatno vplivajo na izvedbo turističnega paketa. | 24. Kiwi Tours then issued a termination invoice for an additional amount of EUR 307, which QM paid. |
| 39. V zvezi s tem je treba najprej opozoriti, da člen 12 Direktive 2015/2302, kot je razvidno iz njegovega naslova, ureja „odstop od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju in pravico do umika pred začetkom turističnega paketa“. Člen 12(1) te direktive določa pravico potnika, da od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju odstopi „kadar koli pred začetkom turističnega paketa“. V tem primeru se v skladu s to določbo „lahko od njega zahteva, da organizatorju plača ustrezno in upravičeno odstopnino“. Člen 12(2) potniku priznava pravico, da „v primeru neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin v kraju potovanja ali neposredni bližini, ki znatno vplivajo na izvedbo turističnega paketa, ali okoliščin, ki znatno vplivajo na prevoz potnikov v kraj potovanja“, odstopi od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju brez plačila vsakršne odstopnine. | 25. On 26 March 2020, Japan adopted an entry ban. QM then requested reimbursement of the sums paid, which Kiwi Tours refused. |
| 40. V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je treba pri razlagi določbe prava Unije upoštevati ne le besedilo te določbe, ampak tudi njen kontekst, cilje, ki jim sledi ureditev, katere del je navedena določba, in po potrebi zgodovino njenega nastanka. Natančneje, upoštevati je treba uvodne izjave zadevnega akta Unije, saj lahko pojasnijo voljo avtorja akta in so lahko pomembni elementi razlage tega akta.(5) | 26. While the Amtsgericht (Local Court, Germany) ordered Kiwi Tours, at QM’s request, to reimburse the sums paid, the Landgericht (Regional Court, Germany), on appeal by Kiwi Tours, dismissed that claim. The Landgericht (Regional Court) observed that, at the time of the termination of the contract, it was not possible to consider that there were unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances. On the basis of an |
| 41. Ena od možnih razlag besedila člena 12(2) Direktive 2015/2302 je, da izhaja, da mora na dan začetka paketnega potovanja nastati ali obstajati znaten vpliv na izvedbo turističnega paketa, da bi potnik od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju lahko odstopil brezplačno. V besedilu te določbe se namreč v zvezi z neizogibnimi in izrednimi okoliščinami, ki obstajajo „v kraju potovanja“ in „znatno vplivajo na izvedbo turističnega paketa“, uporablja sedanjik. Vendarsta avstrijska vlada in Evropska komisija v bistvu opozorili, da se v besedilu uvodne izjave 31 te direktive (v njeni angleški različici) uporablja prihodnjik, in sicer v delu, v katerem je navedeno, da pravica do odstopa od pogodbe brez plačila kakšne koli odstopnine nastane, „kadar | ex ante |
| bodo | assessment, QM was therefore not entitled to terminate the contract without having to pay a termination fee. |
| neizogibne in izredne okoliščine znatno vplivale na izvedbo turističnega paketa“ (moj poudarek). To kaže na to, da je upravičenost do brezplačnega odstopa od pogodbe odvisna od ocene prihodnjega položaja, ki jo potnik napravi ob odstopu od pogodbe. | 27. QM brought an appeal on a point of law before the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court, Germany) against the judgment of the Landgericht (Regional Court). The referring court notes that the court of appeal was correct to consider that the conditions governing the right to terminate the contract free of charge are met when it is possible to assess, even before the start of the package, that unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances exist. That evaluation entails the assessment of whether the extraordinary circumstances give rise to a substantial likelihood that the package or the carriage of passengers to the destination will be significantly affected. According to the referring court, the significant effect is found to exist when the performance of the package would entail significant and unreasonable risks in connection with legally protected interests of the traveller. |
| 42. Ne glede na glagolski čas, uporabljen v členu 12(2) Direktive 2015/2302 in v uvodni izjavi 31 te direktive, je treba navesti, kot ugotavljam v sklepnih predlogih, ki jih tega dne predstavljam v zadevi C‑299/22, da pravica do odstopa od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju brez plačila vsakršne odstopnine nastane „pred začetkom turističnega paketa“. Uporaba predloga „pred“ kaže na to, da med odločitvijo o odstopu od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju in začetkom tega potovanja obstaja določen | 28. Nevertheless, the referring court considers that the assessment made by the court of appeal with regard to the existence of such a risk in the present case is vitiated by errors of law. The appellate court ought to have addressed the question as to whether the unusual nature and quantity of the restrictive measures constituted, already at the time of termination of the contract, sufficient indications that there was a significant risk of infection by the virus. Thus it cannot be ruled out that, by making a correct assessment of that risk, the court of appeal would have come to the conclusion that, at the time of termination of the contract, a trip to Japan involved serious and grave health risks which a prudent traveller would not reasonably be expected to take. |
| časovni zamik | 29. However, the referring court recalls that, according to German procedural law, it may not rule itself on the substance in that respect and it would in principle have to refer the case back to the court of appeal. By contrast, it could itself decide on the appeal without making any further findings of facts and dismiss the appeal if circumstances which arose only after the termination are also relevant for the purpose of assessing the right to termination without charge. Indeed, it is common ground that the trip to the travel destination could not have been carried out because of the entry ban imposed by Japan on 26 March 2020 in connection with the spread of the coronavirus. |
| . Odločitev o odstopu od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju se torej v skladu s členom 12(2) sprejme | 30. The referring court is inclined to take the view that account must be taken of circumstances which arose only after the termination. In that regard, it states, first, that Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302 formally provides for a case of termination distinct from that of paragraph 1 of that article, which applies when, contrary to the traveller’s assessment, there are no unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances occurring at the time of termination and significantly affecting the performance of the package. Article 12(2) is, in essence, relevant only for the legal consequences of the termination, which depend not on the grounds on which the traveller relied to terminate the travel contract, but only on the actual existence of circumstances which have a significant impact on the performance of the journey. |
| vnaprej | 31. Secondly, the referring court considers that the purpose of the termination fee would lead to the same conclusion, irrespective of whether it is to be regarded as a compensation-like payment or as a substitute for the price of the package. In the event that the termination fee is to be regarded as a compensation-like payment, the referring court recalls that, in principle, when assessing damage for which compensation is payable, the entire development of the damage from the time of the event giving rise to the claim until the final decision on the claim must be taken into account. This would militate in favour of presuming an absence of damage for the organiser in cases where it becomes apparent after termination that the performance of the package is significantly affected and the organiser would therefore have been obliged to repay the full price of the package even if the traveller had not terminated the contract. In the event that the termination fee is to be regarded as a substitute for the price of the package, in the sense of a payment which takes the place of the price of the package originally owed, subsequent developments leading to a loss of entitlement of the organiser to the price of the package must likewise not be disregarded. Indeed, according to the referring court, the entitlement to the substitute payment exists only in so far as it would have existed even if the traveller had not terminated the travel contract. |
| . Ta odločitev temelji na | 32. Finally, the referring court notes that consumer protection considerations should militate in favour of taking into account subsequent developments. In its view, a high level of protection requires that, even in the event of an early termination of the travel contract, the traveller should not be obliged to make payments for a travel arrangement whose performance is subsequently significantly affected. Otherwise, in situations of uncertainty, travellers could be dissuaded from making timely use of their right to terminate the travel contract, although early termination allows for the prospect that the termination fee to be paid will in fact be low. According to the referring court, this reduces the risk not only for the traveller but also for the organiser, which gains clarity at an early stage and has more time to save costs or to deploy travel services in an alternative manner. By contrast, making the right of cancellation free of charge dependent on the time of cancellation would encourage speculative behaviour on the part of the organiser in particular. In the view of the referring court, it might lead the organiser to refrain from terminating the travel contract until shortly before the start of trip in order to cause as many travellers as possible to terminate the contract in a way that would be financially more favourable for the organiser. |
| napovedi | 33. The referring court considers that the abovementioned arguments are not called into question by the fact that the maximum period for reimbursement amounts to 14 days after the package travel contract is terminated, as provided for in Article 12(4) of Directive 2015/2302. More specifically, that court takes the position that it cannot be inferred from that provision that the amount of the termination fee must be definitively established at that point in time and that subsequent claims for additional payment or repayment are to be excluded. |
| oziroma na | 34. In those circumstances, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling: |
| predhodni | ‘Is Article 12(2) of [Directive 2015/2302] to be interpreted as meaning that the assessment of the justification of the termination must be based solely on such unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances as have already occurred at the time of termination, or as meaning that it is also necessary to take into account unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances that actually occur after the termination but before the planned start of the journey?’ |
| presoji nastanka „neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin“ ter znatnega vpliva teh okoliščin na izvedbo turističnega paketa ali, če so te okoliščine že nastale, na napovedi | 35. Written observations were submitted by QM, the Greek Government and the European Commission. The parties in the main proceedings, the Greek Government and the European Commission presented oral argument at the joint hearing, which was held for Cases C‑414/22 and C‑584/22, together with Case C‑299/22, |
| nadaljnjega obstoja | Tez Tour |
| znatnega vpliva na tak paket. Kot je trdila avstrijska vlada, je treba, tudi če je v konkretnem položaju na dan odstopa od pogodbe že ugotovljeno, da bodo te okoliščine nastopile na dan potovanja, vseeno presoditi, v kolikšni meri bodo te okoliščine vplivale prav na izvedbo turističnega paketa. | , on 7 June 2023. |
| 43. Predhodna ocena, ki jo potnik napravi na dan odstopa od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju, torej zajema presojo | IV. Assessment |
| verjetnosti | 36. By the two questions in Case C‑414/22 and the single question in Case C‑584/22, the referring courts ask, essentially, whether Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302 is to be interpreted as meaning that the assessment of the occurrence of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances significantly affecting the performance of the package, which gives rise to the right of the traveller to terminate the package travel contract without paying any termination fee, has to be made only at the time of termination of the contract, or whether that provision should be interpreted as meaning that it is also necessary to take into account unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances that actually occur after the termination of the package contract but before the start of the package travel. |
| , da bodo „neizogibne in izredne okoliščine“ znatno vplivale na izvedbo turističnega paketa. Taka presoja mora temeljiti na izjemnosti pravice do odstopa od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju brez plačila vsakršne odstopnine. Potnik mora ob odstopu od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju | 37. The referring court in Case C‑414/22 takes the view that Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302 might suggest that the right to terminate the package contract free of charge should always exist if the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances do in fact occur subsequently and would have significantly affected or rendered impossible the performance of the package. However, that court takes the view that it can also be argued that only the objective situation at the time of the declaration of termination is decisive. The referring court in Case C‑584/22 considers that the assessment of whether there are significant and unreasonable risks in connection with the health or other legally protected interests of the traveller requires a prediction, with the relevant time period being prior to the start of the package contract. It considers, however, that circumstances arising after the termination of the package contract but before the envisaged travel can also be relevant for that assessment. |
| razumno pričakovati | 38. It follows from the requests for a preliminary ruling that the main issue raised is whether there is an autonomous right to terminate the package travel contract based solely on the actual occurrence of the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances significantly affecting the package at the date of travel. |
| , da obstaja | 39. In that regard, as a preliminary point, it must be recalled that, as its title indicates, Article 12 of Directive 2015/2302 governs the ‘termination of the package travel contract and the right of withdrawal before the start of the package’. Article 12(1) of that directive provides for the right of the traveller to terminate the package travel contract ‘at any time before the start of the package’. In that case, under that provision, he or she ‘may be required to pay an appropriate and justifiable termination fee to the organiser’. Article 12(2) recognises the right of the traveller to terminate the package travel contract without paying any termination fee in the event of ‘unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances occurring at the place of destination or its immediate vicinity and significantly affecting the performance of the package, or which significantly affect the carriage of passengers to the destination’. |
| dovolj velika verjetnost | 40. According to settled case-law, the interpretation of a provision of EU law requires that account be taken not only of the wording of that provision, but also of its context, the objectives pursued by the rules of which that provision is part and, where appropriate, its origins. In particular, regard should be had to, inter alia, the recitals of the EU act concerned, since they constitute important elements for the purposes of interpretation, which may clarify the intentions of the author of that act. (5) |
| , da bodo „neizogibne in izredne okoliščine“ znatno vplivale na izvedbo turističnega paketa. | 41. One possible interpretation of the wording of Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302 is that for the traveller to be entitled to terminate the package travel contract free of charge, the significant effect on the performance of the package materialises or persists at the date of the travel package. That provision refers to the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances ‘occurring at the place of destination’ and ‘significantly affecting the performance of the package’ using the present tense. The Austrian Government and the European Commission have nevertheless observed that recital 31 of the directive uses the future tense (in its English version) when it states that the right to terminate without paying any termination fee arises ‘where unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances |
| 44. Iz navedenega izhaja, da lahko potnik pravico do odstopa od pogodbe brez plačila vsakršne odstopnine v skladu s členom 12(2) Direktive 2015/2302 pridobi pred začetkom turističnega paketa ob odstopu od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju, in sicer na podlagi razumne predvidljivosti znatnega vpliva na ta paket. Ta pridobljena pravica pa ne more prenehati zaradi nastopa poznejših dogodkov. Kot trdi Komisija, bi bilo namreč absurdno, če bi potnik zaradi neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin lahko odstopil od pogodbe, vendar bi moral nato počakati na dejanski nastanek teh okoliščin na dan potovanja, da bi bil lahko izvzet iz obveznosti plačila odstopnine. Po drugi strani pa je jasno, da potnik, če pravice do brezplačnega odstopa sploh nima, te pravice ne more pridobiti za nazaj, to je zaradi poznejših dogodkov, do katerih pride po odstopu od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju. | will |
| 45. To razlago potrjuje kontekst člena 12(2) Direktive 2015/2302. V zvezi s tem je iz zgoraj navedenih uvodnih ugotovitev(6) razvidno, da ima potnik na podlagi zadevnega člena dve ločeni pravici do odstopa od pogodbe. Po eni strani lahko potnik v skladu s členom 12(1) te direktive „kadar koli pred začetkom turističnega paketa odstopi od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju“. Ker uresničevanje te pravice ni pogojeno z zahtevo po navedbi razlogov za odstop od pogodbe, se lahko zgodi, kar ravno tako izhaja iz člena 12(1), da mora potnik plačati „ustrezno in upravičeno odstopnino“. Po drugi strani pa člen 12(2) Direktive 2015/2302 priznava pravico do odstopa od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju brez plačila vsakršne odstopnine „pred začetkom turističnega paketa“ „v primeru neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin v kraju potovanja […], ki znatno vplivajo na izvedbo turističnega paketa“. | significantly affect the performance of the package’ (my emphasis). That would indicate that the entitlement to a termination of the package travel contract free of charge depends on a prospective evaluation of the situation by the traveller at the moment of termination of the contract. |
| 46. Če bi sprejeli stališče, da je dejanski nastanek neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin samostojen pogoj za priznanje pravice do brezplačnega odstopa od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju, ki ni odvisen od presoje, podane na dan odstopa od take pogodbe, bi to posledično privedlo do priznanja nove pravice do celotnega povračila, ki bi jo imeli vsi potniki ne glede na razloge, ki so jih navedli v utemeljitev odstopa od pogodbe. Če namreč niso pomembne razmere, ki so obstajale na dan | 42. Irrespective of the tense used in Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302 and in recital 31 of that directive, it must be pointed out that, as I observe in my Opinion in Case C‑299/22 delivered today, the right to terminate the package travel contract without paying any termination fee arises ‘before the start of the package’. The use of the preposition ‘before’ indicates that there is a |
| x | time lapse |
| (na dan odstopa od pogodbe), ampak to, kar se je dejansko zgodilo pozneje, to je na dan | between the decision to terminate the package travel contract and the start of the package. The decision to terminate the package according to Article 12(2) is therefore |
| z | prospective |
| (na dan potovanja), potem bi moral imeti potnik, ki je od pogodbe v skladu s členom 12(1) Direktive 2015/2302 odstopil zaradi osebnih razlogov, ravno tako pravico, da zahteva povračilo odstopnine, ki jo je že plačal, če zaradi neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin ni mogel potovati. | . It relies on a |
| 47. Če bi potnik imel možnost, da v primeru dejanskega nastanka neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin odstopi od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju brez plačila vsakršne odstopnine, pri čemer to ne bi bilo odvisno od razmer, ki so obstajale v času odstopa od te pogodbe, bi bilo to, kot je v bistvu trdila grška vlada, v nasprotju s popolno harmonizacijo pravic in obveznosti strank pogodbe o paketnem potovanju, kot je določena v členu 4 Direktive 2015/2302. | forecast |
| 48. Zaradi rešitve „ | or |
| ex post facto | ex ante |
| “ se namreč pojavlja negotovost glede trenutka, v katerem je treba opraviti presojo pravic in obveznosti obeh pogodbenih strank. Kot je grška vlada trdila na obravnavi, se pogodbeno razmerje za stranki konča, ko potnik odstopi od pogodbe. | assessment of the occurrence of ‘unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances’ and of their significant effect on the performance of the package or, in the event that those circumstances have already occurred, on a forecast of the |
| persistence | |
| Ker zakonodajalec Unije ni izrecno določil, da lahko dogodki, do katerih pride po odstopu od pogodbe, vplivajo na pogodbeno razmerje, mora biti za opredelitev razumnosti napovedi, ki jo je napravil potnik, odločilen prav odstop od pogodbe. To je namreč trenutek, v katerem je treba presojati pravne posledice uveljavitve pravice do odstopa od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju. Če so pogoji iz člena 12(2) Direktive 2015/2302 izpolnjeni, je pravna posledica, ki izhaja iz uveljavitve pravice do odstopa od pogodbe, obveznost organizatorja, da potniku v skladu s členom 12(4) te direktive najpozneje v 14 dneh po odstopu od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju zagotovi celotno povračilo. | of the significant effect on the package. As the Austrian Government argued, even if in a specific situation, it is already established, at the date of termination of the contract, that those circumstances will occur at the date of the travel, the extent to which those circumstances will precisely affect the performance of the package will still have to be assessed. |
| 49. To, da je treba celotno povračilo v skladu s členom 12(4) zagotoviti brez odlašanja, namreč, kot je trdila grška vlada, potrjuje razlago, v skladu s katero je trenutek odstopa od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju odločilen za določitev pravic in obveznosti strank. V zvezi z zadnjenavedenim vidikom naj opozorim, da se določitev natančnega zneska odstopnine razlikuje od določitve pravice potnika do odstopa od pogodbe brez plačila vsakršne odstopnine. Potnik lahko od pogodbe odstopi le enkrat, prav v trenutku odstopa pa mora obstajati gotovost glede tega, ali ima pravico do celotnega povračila vseh plačil za turistični paket. | 43. The |
| 50. Poleg tega je pravica potnika, da zaradi neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin odstopi od pogodbe, | ex ante |
| neločljivo povezana | assessment made by the traveller at the date of termination of the package travel contract implies, therefore, an assessment of the |
| s tem, da nima obveznosti plačila kakršne koli odstopnine. Zato bistvenih elementov pravice iz člena 12(2) Direktive 2015/2302 ni mogoče | likelihood |
| ločiti | that the ‘unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances’ will have a significant effect on the performance of the package. That assessment must be guided by the exceptional nature of the right to terminate the package travel contract without having to pay a termination fee. At the time of termination of the package travel contract, the traveller must |
| glede na trenutek, v katerem so nastali, in zagovarjati stališča, da lahko potnik sicer odstopi od pogodbe in se pri tem sklicuje na neizogibne in izredne okoliščine, vendar je njegova pravica do celotnega povračila odvisna od poznejših dogodkov. | reasonably expect |
| 51. Naknadna presoja neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin bi vplivala tudi na razlago ustreznih pravic organizatorja. Obveznost potnika, da plača odstopnino, če pogoja iz člena 12(2) Direktive 2015/2302 nista izpolnjena, je namreč podlaga za ustrezni zahtevek organizatorja. Če bi bila pravica potnika do brezplačnega odstopa od pogodbe odvisna od poznejših dogodkov, bi to posledično pomenilo, kot je na obravnavi trdila družba Kiwi Tours, da bi bil nastanek ali prenehanje pravice do odstopnine, ki jo ima organizator, odvisen od spreminjajočih se razmer, do katerih bi prišlo od trenutka odstopa od pogodbe do trenutka načrtovanega potovanja. | that there is a |
| 52. Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da lahko organizator v skladu s členom 12(3) Direktive 2015/2302 odstopi od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju in potniku zagotovi celotno povračilo, ni pa odgovoren za dodatno nadomestilo, če „ne more izvesti pogodbe zaradi neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin ter potnika | sufficiently high probability |
| pred začetkom turističnega paketa | that ‘unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances’ will significantly affect the performance of the package. |
| […] obvesti o odstopu od pogodbe“ (moj poudarek). Če bi bilo mogoče dogodkom, do katerih pride po odstopu od pogodbe, pripisati samostojen pomen z vidika določitve pravic in obveznosti pogodbenih strank, bi bilo treba posledično priznati, da bi lahko organizator od pogodbe sicer odstopil pred začetkom turističnega paketa, vendar bi bila njegova obveznost plačila dodatnega nadomestila odvisna od tega, ali se je njegovo predvidevanje na dan načrtovanega potovanja dejansko uresničilo. Tak rezultat pa bi pomenil, da bi bila oprostitev odgovornosti, ki jo ima organizator, negotova. Poleg tega bi bilo to v nasprotju z že navedeno odločitvijo zakonodajalca Unije glede popolne harmonizacije pravic in obveznosti strank, vključno z vprašanjem odgovornosti organizatorja za plačilo dodatnega nadomestila. | 44. It follows that the right of the traveller to terminate the contract without paying any termination fee, in accordance with Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302, can be acquired before the start of the package at the moment of termination of the package travel contract on the basis of the reasonable foreseeability of the significant effect on the package. That acquired right cannot be extinguished due to subsequent events. As the Commission submits, it would be absurd if the traveller were able to terminate the contract due to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances but would subsequently have to wait for those circumstances actually to occur on the date of travelling in order to be exempt from paying the termination fee. Conversely, if the traveller has no right to a termination free of charge, such right cannot be acquired retroactively after termination of the package travel contract due to subsequent events. |
| 53. Iz navedenega izhaja, da bi bil položaj strank pogodbe o paketnem potovanju v trenutku odstopa od pogodbe zaradi naknadne presoje negotov, kar bi lahko ogrozilo sistem določitve pravic in obveznosti strank iz člena 12 Direktive 2015/2302. Nasprotno pa se z upoštevanjem predhodne presoje nevarnosti razmer ob odstopu od pogodbe kot edinega odločilnega merila zagotavlja | 45. This interpretation is corroborated by the context of Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302. In that regard, it follows from the preliminary observations above (6) that that article recognises two distinct termination rights for the traveller. On the one hand, under Article 12(1) of the directive, the traveller can ‘terminate the package travel contract at any time before the start of the package’. As the exercise of that right is not subject to the requirement to state the reasons for the termination, the traveller may be obliged, also under Article 12(1) of the directive, to pay an ‘appropriate and justifiable termination fee’. On the other hand, Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302 recognises a right to terminate the package travel contract without paying any termination fee ‘before the start of the package … in the event of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances occurring at the place of destination … and significantly affecting the performance of the package’. |
| pravna varnost | 46. If it were to be accepted that the actual occurrence of the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances is an autonomous condition for the recognition of the right to terminate free of charge, irrespective of the assessment made at the date of termination of the package travel contract, the consequence of this is that it would lead to the recognition of a new right to full reimbursement for all travellers independent from the grounds which they invoked to terminate the contract. Indeed, if what matters is not what the situation was at date |
| z vidika posledic odstopa od pogodbe. Povedano drugače, prihodnji dogodki, do katerih pride pred načrtovanim potovanjem, vendar po odstopu od pogodbe, ne bi smeli spremeniti pravnega položaja, ki se je vzpostavil ob odstopu od pogodbe. | x |
| 54. V zvezi s ciljem člena 12(2) Direktive 2015/2302 je treba navesti, da ta določba potniku priznava pravico, da pod pogoji, ki so v njej določeni, že pred začetkom turističnega paketa odstopi od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju brez plačila vsakršne odstopnine. Kot je bilo že pojasnjeno zgoraj, mora potnik, da bi lahko od pogodbe odstopil pred začetkom turističnega paketa, ob odstopu od pogodbe predvideti, kakšne bodo razmere, ki bi lahko nastale zaradi vpliva neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin na izvedbo paketa. Če bi bilo mogoče presojo obstoja pravice do odstopa od pogodbe opraviti naknadno in ob upoštevanju dogodkov, do katerih je dejansko prišlo na dan potovanja, potem pred začetkom turističnega paketa ne bi bilo mogoče uveljaviti pravice do brezplačnega odstopa od pogodbe. Uresničevanje te pravice bi bilo treba torej | (the date of termination of the contract) but what actually happened at a later date |
| zadržati | z |
| do dneva potovanja. Tak pristop pa bi bil v nasprotju s tem, kar določa člen 12(2) Direktive 2015/2302. | (the date of travel), then a traveller who terminated the contract for personal reasons in accordance with Article 12(1) of Directive 2015/2302 should also be entitled to claim back the termination fee he or she had already paid in the event of non-travel due to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances. |
| 55. Menim, da naknadnega pristopa, v skladu s katerim so dogodki, do katerih pride po odstopu od pogodbe, vendar pred začetkom turističnega paketa, odločilni za uveljavljanje pravice do odstopa od pogodbe, ni mogoče utemeljiti z ugotovitvami, ki se nanašajo na visoko raven varstva potrošnikov. V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da je Direktiva 2015/2302 v skladu z uvodno izjavo 5 namenjena vzpostavitvi „pravega ravnovesja med visoko ravnijo varstva potrošnikov in konkurenčnostjo podjetij“. Naknadni pristop za potnika ni ugodnejši od pristopa, ki vključuje predhodno presojo. S tega vidika si je mogoče predstavljati primer, v katerem potnik ob odstopu od pogodbe razumno in utemeljeno oceni nevarnosti potovanja, na koncu pa se razmere v nasprotju s prognostično oceno nevarnosti položaja, ki jo je potnik sprva podal, dejansko izboljšajo. Naknadni pristop bi bil za potnika ugodnejši le, če bi obveljalo stališče, da se lahko poznejši dogodki upoštevajo le, če je mogoče presojo, ki jo je opravil potnik, na podlagi takih dogodkov potrditi, ne pa ovreči. Vendar če bi bilo mogoče razlago tega pravila upoštevati zgolj tako, da bi vodila le k enemu izidu, ugodnemu za potnika, medtem ko se morebitni neugodni rezultat te razlage ne bi upošteval, bi bilo to – po mojem mnenju očitno – v nasprotju s tem, kar je zakonodajalec Unije predvidel v členu 12(2). | 47. As the Greek Government essentially submitted, recognising the possibility of the traveller to terminate the package travel contract without paying any termination fee in the event of the actual occurrence of the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances, irrespective of the situation at the moment of termination, would run counter to the full harmonisation of the rights and obligations of the parties in the travel contract, as provided for in Article 4 of Directive 2015/2302. |
| 56. Predložitveno sodišče v zadevi C‑584/22 je menilo, da v prid upoštevanju okoliščin, ki so nastale po odstopu od pogodbe, govori zlasti namen odstopnine. Po mnenju predložitvenega sodišča naj bi to veljalo ne glede na to, ali je treba odstopnino šteti za dajatev, podobno odškodnini, ali za nadomestilo za plačilo turističnega paketa. Bistvena trditev, ki jo zagovarja predložitveno sodišče, je, da bi moral organizator, če bi bilo treba upoštevati poznejši razvoj dogodkov, potniku vrniti celotno ceno turističnega paketa, tudi če ta ne bi odstopil od pogodbe. S tega vidika organizator ne bi smel imeti pravice do kakršne koli odstopnine, če bi se pozneje izkazalo, da „škoda“ ali pravica do take odstopnine zaradi dejanskega nastopa neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin sploh ni nastala. | 48. Indeed, the ‘ |
| 57. V zvezi s to trditvijo je treba opozoriti, da mora potnik odstopnino plačati, kadar pravico do odstopa od pogodbe uveljavlja „kadar koli“ pred začetkom turističnega paketa v smislu člena 12(1) Direktive 2015/2302 in iz kakršnega koli razloga. Pomen izraza „odstopnina“ je nevtralen v primerjavi z izrazom „nadomestilo“ (v nemščini | ex post facto |
| Entschädigung | ’ solution creates uncertainty as to the point in time at which the rights and obligations of both parties to the contract have to be assessed. As the Greek Government submitted at the hearing, the contractual relationship ends for both parties when the traveller terminates the contract |
| ), ki se uporablja v nacionalnih predpisih, s katerimi je bila ta določba prenesena v nacionalno pravo. V skladu s členom 12(1) Direktive 2015/2302 lahko pogodba o paketnem potovanju določa razumne odstopnine na podlagi tega, „koliko časa pred začetkom turističnega paketa pride do odstopa od pogodbe, ter pričakovanih prihrankov stroškov in prihodkov iz nadomestne uporabe potovalnih storitev“. Iz opisa tega, kaj odstopnina dejansko pomeni, izhaja, da gre pravzaprav za protiutež pravici potnika, da kadar koli odstopi od pogodbe. To je, kot v bistvu trdi Komisija, dodaten primer ravnovesja med pravicami in obveznostmi strank pogodbe o paketnem potovanju, vzpostavitvi katerega je namenjena ta direktiva. | . |
| 58. Ne glede na pravno naravo take odstopnine pa bi, kot sem že pojasnila, sprejetje stališča, da take odstopnine ni treba plačati, če se pozneje izkaže, da potovanja ne bi bilo mogoče izvesti, povzročilo veliko pravno negotovost in ogrozilo harmonizacijo pravic in obveznosti strank pogodbe o paketnem potovanju. | Since the EU legislature did not specifically provide that future events after the termination of the contract may influence the contractual relationship, the termination of the contract must be decisive for the purposes of determining whether the prediction made by the traveller is reasonable. It is at that point in time that the legal consequences of the exercise of the right to terminate the package travel contract have to be assessed. If the conditions of Article 12(2) are met, the legal consequence of the exercise of the right to terminate the contract is the obligation, for the organiser, to give a full refund no later than 14 days after the package travel contract is terminated, in accordance with Article 12(4) of the directive. |
| 59. Kljub temu je nacionalno sodišče v zadevi C‑584/22 opozorilo na nevarnost neugodnih posledic, ki bi lahko nastale, če obveznost plačila odstopnine ne bi bila odvisna od dejanske izvedbe turističnega paketa. To sodišče je menilo, da bi bili potniki v negotovih položajih lahko odvrnjeni od zgodnjega uveljavljanja pravice do odstopa pogodbe o paketnem potovanju in da bi bili lahko prisiljeni v to, da počakajo na nadaljnje informacije ali na to, da organizator sam odstopi od take pogodbe. | 49. The promptness with which the full refund has to take place under Article 12(4) confirms, as the Greek Government submitted, the interpretation according to which the moment of termination of the package travel contract is decisive for the determination of the rights and obligations of the parties. In that latter regard, I would like to observe that the determination of the exact amount of the termination fee is different from the determination of the right of the traveller to terminate the contract without paying any termination fee. The traveller can terminate the contract only once and it is at the moment of termination that there must be certainty as to whether or not there is an entitlement to the full reimbursement of the payments made. |
| 60. V zvezi s tem priznavam, da je vnaprejšnja odločitev, ki jo mora potnik sprejeti zaradi nastopa neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin, že po definiciji povezana z negotovostjo. Vendar je treba pri razlagi pogojev za uveljavljanje pravice do odstopa od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju v skladu s členom 12(2) Direktive 2015/2302 upoštevati stopnjo negotovosti. Pri uveljavljanju te pravice se ne zahteva, kot je v bistvu trdila avstrijska vlada, da mora biti potnik zmožen z absolutno gotovostjo trditi, da bodo neizogibne in izredne okoliščine zagotovo nastale in da bodo imele znaten vpliv. Kot sem že navedla, zadostuje, da mora potnik ob odstopu od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju razumno pričakovati, da obstaja dovolj velika verjetnost, da bodo neizogibne in izredne okoliščine znatno vplivale na izvedbo turističnega paketa. Poleg tega, kot sem v bistvu pojasnila v sklepnih predlogih, ki jih tega dne predstavljam v zadevi C‑299/22, Tez Tour, je treba pri ugotavljanju, kaj je povprečen potnik vedel in kako je ocenjeval možnost nastanka znatnega vpliva na izvedbo pogodbe, upoštevati visoko raven negotovosti in izredno hitro razvijajoč se položaj na začetku pandemije. | 50. Moreover, the right of the traveller to terminate the contract due to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances is |
| 61. Iz navedenih preudarkov izhaja, da besedilo, kontekst in cilj Direktive 2015/2302 govorijo v prid razlagi člena 12(2) te direktive, v skladu s katero odločilni trenutek za določitev pravice do odstopa od pogodbe brez plačila odstopnine temelji na predhodni presoji, ki se opravi ob odstopu od pogodbe. | inextricably linked |
| 62. Ne glede na navedeno pa člen 12(2) ne nasprotuje temu, da bi nacionalna sodišča poznejše dogodke obravnavala kot elemente dokazov, ki jih je treba prosto presojati v skladu z nacionalnim postopkovnim pravom. Če se je potnik ob odstopu od pogodbe skliceval na neizogibne in izredne okoliščine in so se razmere, na katere se je skliceval, poslabšale, kar je znatno vplivalo na izvedbo turističnega paketa, potem je jasno, kot je na obravnavi v bistvu trdila grška vlada, da to prispeva k podkrepitvi predvidevanj potnika ob odstopu od pogodbe. Če pa potnik ob odstopu ni imel pravice do odstopa od pogodbe, potem poznejši dogodki | to the absence of liability to pay any termination fee. It is therefore not possible to |
| sami po sebi | split |
| ne morejo biti podlaga za nastanek pravice do brezplačnega odstopa, ki je sploh nima. Podobno velja tudi za izboljšanje razmer, ki ne more biti retroaktivna podlaga za spremembo pravice potnika do celotnega povračila, če je ob odstopu razumno predvidel, kakšen bo vpliv neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin na izvedbo turističnega paketa. | in time the essential elements of the right provided for under Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302 and to accept that it is possible for the traveller to terminate the contract invoking unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances but that his or her right to full reimbursement depends on subsequent events. |
| 63. V postopkih v glavni stvari bi moralo nacionalno sodišče v zadevi C‑414/22 presoditi, ali bi lahko povprečen potnik na dan odstopa od pogodbe aprila 2020 razumno pričakoval, da bo pandemija znatno vplivala na izvedbo turističnega paketa, ki je bilo v obliki potovanja – zabave načrtovano za poletje 2020. Glede na navedbe, ki jih vsebuje predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, in vztrajanje nacionalnih organov, da je treba odložiti vsa nenujna potovanja in uporabiti možnosti za odstop od pogodb o paketnem potovanju, se zdi razumno, da bi povprečen potnik aprila 2020 predvidel, da tako potovanje (ki temelji na zbiranju in zabavi velikega števila mladih) ne bo izvedeno. O tem mora presoditi nacionalno sodišče, ki se mora opreti tudi na elemente, katerih analizo sem opravila v sklepnih predlogih, ki jih danes predstavljam v zadevi C‑299/22, Tez Tour. | 51. The |
| 64. Če bi nacionalno sodišče menilo, da je potnik v skladu s členom 12(2) Direktive 2015/2302 imel pravico do odstopa od pogodbe, potem je treba prav tako opozoriti, da lahko potnik to pravico uveljavi, ne da bi ga kakršen koli dogovor, ki ga je sprejel zaradi nepoznavanja svojih pravic, zavezoval k plačilu znižane odstopnine. Tak dogovor namreč pomeni omejitev potnikovih pravic in za potnika v skladu s členom 23(3) Direktive 2015/2302 ni zavezujoč. | ex post |
| 65. V zadevi C‑584/22 pa predložitveno sodišče navaja, da bi moralo pritožbeno sodišče preučiti, ali je bilo potovanje na Japonsko že ob odstopu od pogodbe, do katerega je prišlo 1. marca 2020, povezano z resnimi tveganji za zdravje, sprejetje katerih za preudarnega potnika ne bi bilo razumno. Iz razlogov, ki sem jih analizirala zgoraj, je trenutek odstopa od pogodbe edini odločilni trenutek za to preučitev. | assessment of the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances would also have an impact on the interpretation of the corresponding rights of the organiser. An obligation of the traveller to pay a termination fee in the event that the requirements of Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302 are not met corresponds to a respective claim of the organiser. As Kiwi Tours argued at the hearing, if the traveller’s right to terminate free of charge were to depend on subsequent events, that would have the consequence that the right of the organiser to the termination fee would be constituted or extinguished depending on the evolution of the situation occurring between the moment of the termination and the moment of intended travel. |
| 66. Glede na navedeno menim, da je treba člen 12(2) Direktive 2015/2302 razlagati tako, da je treba presojo nastanka neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin, ki znatno vplivajo na izvedbo pogodbe, na podlagi katerega ima potnik pravico, da od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju odstopi brez plačila vsakršne odstopnine, opraviti zgolj ob odstopu od pogodbe. Nastanek te pravice ni odvisen od tega, ali so take okoliščine po odstopu od pogodbe dejansko nastopile. | 52. Furthermore, it must be recalled that, in accordance with Article 12(3)(b) of Directive 2015/2302, the organiser may terminate the package travel contract and provide the traveller with a full refund without being liable for additional compensation if the organiser is ‘prevented from performing the contract because of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances and notifies the traveller … |
| V. Predlog | before the start of the package |
| 67. Glede na navedeno Sodišču predlagam, naj na vprašanja za predhodno odločanje, ki sta jih postavili Oberster Gerichtshof (vrhovno sodišče, Avstrija) in Bundesgerichtshof (zvezno vrhovno sodišče, Nemčija), odgovori: | ’ (my emphasis). If events occurring after termination were to have an autonomous significance in terms of the determination of the rights and obligations of the parties, it would then have to be accepted that the organiser could terminate the contract before the start of the package but that its liability to pay additional compensation would depend on whether, at the date of the intended travel, its prediction was actually confirmed. Such a result would render the exoneration from liability of the organiser uncertain. Moreover, it would be contrary to the aforementioned full harmonisation by the EU legislature of the rights and obligations of the parties, including the issue of the liability of the organiser to pay additional compensation. |
| Člen 12(2) Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 25. novembra 2015 o paketnih potovanjih in povezanih potovalnih aranžmajih, spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 2006/2004 in Direktive 2011/83/EU Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta ter razveljavitvi Direktive Sveta 90/314/EGS | 53. It follows that the |
| je treba razlagati tako, da je treba presojo nastanka neizogibnih in izrednih okoliščin, ki znatno vplivajo na izvedbo pogodbe, na podlagi katerega ima potnik pravico, da od pogodbe o paketnem potovanju odstopi brez plačila vsakršne odstopnine, opraviti zgolj ob odstopu od pogodbe. Nastanek te pravice ni odvisen od tega, ali so take okoliščine po odstopu od pogodbe dejansko nastopile. | ex post |
| assessment would render the position of the parties to the travel contract at the moment of termination of the contract uncertain and would be liable to frustrate the system of determination of the rights and obligations of the parties laid down in Article 12 of Directive 2015/2302. On the contrary, considering the | |
| ex ante | |
| assessment of the risk situation at the time of the termination of the contract as the only decisive criterion ensures | |
| legal certainty | |
| as to the consequences of termination. In other words, future events occurring before the intended travel but after the termination of the contract should not be capable of reversing an established legal position at the time of the termination of the contract. | |
| 54. With regard to the objective of Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302, that provision recognises the right of the traveller to terminate the package contract without paying any termination fee already before the start of the package, under the conditions provided therein. As explained above, in order to be able to terminate the package before it starts, the traveller must make a prediction of the situation at the time of termination of the contract with regard to the impact of the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances on the performance of the package. If it were possible to assess the existence of the right to terminate the contract a posteriori, in view of what actually occurred at the date of travel, then it would not be possible to establish the right to terminate the contract free of charge before the start of the package. That right would have to be | |
| suspended | |
| until the date of travel. However, this would be contrary to what is provided for by Article 12(2) of the directive. | |
| 55. The | |
| ex post | |
| approach, according to which events occurring after the termination of the contract but before the start of the package are decisive in relation to the right to terminate the contract, is not supported, in my view, by considerations related to a high level of consumer protection. In that regard, it must be recalled that, according to recital 5 of Directive 2015/2302, that directive aims to strike ‘the right balance between a high level of consumer protection and the competitiveness of businesses’. The | |
| ex post | |
| approach is not more beneficial to the traveller than the approach involving an | |
| ex ante | |
| assessment. In that regard, it can be envisaged the situation in which a traveller makes a reasonable and justified evaluation of the risks of travelling at the time of terminating the contract but then, against his or her initial prognostic assessment of the risk situation, finally the situation improves. The | |
| ex post | |
| approach would be more beneficial to the traveller only if it were to be accepted that subsequent events can be taken into account only if they confirm the assessment made by the traveller, and not if they refute that assessment. However, it is clear to me that it would be contrary to what the EU legislature envisaged in Article 12(2) if it were possible to follow an interpretation of that rule only to the extent it leads in one favourable direction for the traveller, while at the same time disregarding the possible unfavourable outcome of that interpretation. | |
| 56. The referring court in Case C‑584/22 considered that the purpose of the termination fee, in particular, militates in favour of taking into account circumstances which occurred after the termination of the contract. In the view of the referring court, that would be the case irrespective of whether the termination fee is to be regarded as a compensation-like payment or as a substitute for the price of the package. The essential point which the referring court is making is that, if subsequent developments are to be taken into account, the organiser would be obliged to fully refund the traveller even if he or she had not terminated the contract. From that perspective, the organiser should not be entitled to any termination fee if it subsequently turns out that there is no ‘damage’ or entitlement to such fee, since the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances had actually occurred. | |
| 57. As regards that argument, it should be recalled that the termination fee is owed by the traveller when he or she exercises the right to withdraw before the start of the package ‘at any time’, within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 2015/2302, and for any reason. The term ‘termination fee’ is neutral compared with the term ‘compensation’ (the German term for this being ‘ | |
| Entschädigung | |
| ’), which is used in the national transpositions of that provision of the directive. Under Article 12(1) of Directive 2015/2302, the package travel contract may specify reasonable termination fees based ‘on the time of the termination of the contract before the start of the package and the expected cost savings and income from alternative deployment of the travel services’. The description of what the termination fee represents is akin to a counterweight to the right of the traveller to withdraw from the contract at any time. As the Commission essentially submits, this is a further instance of the balance which the directive intends to strike between the rights and obligations of the parties specified in the travel contract. | |
| 58. As I have argued above, irrespective of the legal nature of the termination fee, accepting that no such fee is owed if it subsequently appears | |
| that the trip could not have taken place creates major legal uncertainty and would undermine the harmonisation of the rights and obligations of the parties specified in the travel contract. | |
| 59. Nevertheless, the referring court in Case C‑584/22 warned against the risk that there could be negative consequences if the obligation to pay a termination fee is not based on whether the package was actually performed. That court took the view that, in uncertain situations, travellers could be discouraged from exercising their right to terminate the travel contract at an early stage and that they would be compelled to wait until further information becomes available or the organiser terminates the package on its own initiative. | |
| 60. In that regard, I acknowledge that a prospective decision which the traveller is prompted to take on account of the occurrence of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances is, by definition, connected with a situation of uncertainty. However, the level of uncertainty has to be taken into account when interpreting the conditions of the exercise of the right to terminate the travel contract under Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302. That right does not require, as the Austrian Government essentially argued, that the traveller be able to affirm with absolute certainty that unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances will definitely occur and have a significant effect. As has already been pointed out, at the time of termination of the package travel contract, it is adequate that the traveller must reasonably expect that there is a sufficiently high probability | |
| that the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances will significantly affect the performance of the package. Moreover, as I essentially suggest in my Opinion delivered today in Case C-299/22 | |
| Tez Tour | |
| , the high level of uncertainty and the extremely rapidly evolving situation at the beginning of the pandemic, have to be taken into account to determine what the average traveller knew and his or her assessment of the likelihood of the occurrence of the significant effect on the performance of the contract. | |
| 61. It follows from the abovementioned considerations that the wording, context and objective of Directive 2015/2302 militate in favour of an interpretation of Article 12(2) of that directive according to which the decisive point in time for determining the right to terminate the contract without paying a termination fee is based on an | |
| ex ante | |
| assessment at the moment of termination of the contract. | |
| 62. That being said, Article 12(2) does not stand in opposition to national courts considering subsequent events as elements of proof, which are to be freely assessed in accordance with domestic procedural law. As the Greek Government essentially argued at the hearing, if, at the moment of termination, the traveller invoked unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances and the situation invoked by him or her deteriorated, leading to a significant effect on the performance of the package, this serves to reinforce his or her prediction at the moment of termination. However, if the traveller was not justified in terminating the contract at the time of termination, subsequent events may not | |
| by themselves | |
| establish a right to a free of charge termination which he or she is not entitled to. Similarly, an improvement of the situation may not impinge retroactively on the entitlement of the traveller to a full refund if, at the moment of termination, he or she made a reasonable prediction as to the impact of the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances on the package. | |
| 63. In the cases in the main proceedings, as regards Case C‑414/22, the national court would have to assess whether, on the date of termination of the contract in April 2020, an average traveller could reasonably expect that the pandemic would have a significant effect on the performance of the package planned as a festive trip for the summer 2020. From the information contained in the reference for a preliminary ruling, taking into account the urging of the national authorities to postpone all non-essential travel and to make use of possibilities to terminate travel contracts, it would seem reasonable for an average traveller to predict, in April 2020, that such a trip (the very concept of which is the gathering of a high number of young people for celebrating) would not take place. It is for the national court to make that assessment, guided also by the parameters that I analyse in my Opinion delivered today in Case C‑299/22, | |
| Tez Tour | |
| . | |
| 64. It must also be observed that, if the national court were to consider that the traveller was entitled to terminate the contract in accordance with Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302, the traveller enjoys that right without being bound by any agreement to pay reduced termination fees which he or she accepted due to ignoring his or her rights. Indeed, that agreement results in a restriction of his or her rights which, pursuant to Article 23(3) of that directive, is not to be binding on the traveller. | |
| 65. With regard to Case C‑584/22, the referring court indicates that the appellate court ought to have addressed whether, at the moment of termination of the contract on 1 March 2020, a trip to Japan was already fraught with serious health risks which it would not be reasonable for a prudent traveller to take. For the reasons I analysed above, the moment of termination of the contract is the only one decisive in order to make that determination. | |
| 66. In view of the above, I consider that Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302 should be interpreted as meaning that the assessment of the occurrence of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances significantly affecting the performance of the contract, which gives rise to the right of the traveller to terminate the package contract without paying any termination fee, must be made only at the time of the termination of the contract. The establishment of that right does not depend on whether such circumstances actually occurred after the termination of the contract. | |
| V. Conclusion | |
| 67. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court reply to the questions referred by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) and by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court, Germany) as follows: | |
| Article 12(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC | |
| is to be interpreted as meaning that the assessment of the occurence of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances significantly affecting the performance of the contract, which gives rise to the right of the traveller to terminate the package contract without paying any termination fee, must be made only at the time of the termination of the contract. The establishment of that right does not depend on whether such circumstances actually occurred after the termination of the contract. | |
| 1 Original language: English. | |
| 2 Opening remarks of the Director-General of the WHO at the media briefing on COVID-19, 11 March 2020. | |
| 3 See ‘Guidance on the right of travellers to terminate package travel contracts due to extraordinary circumstances resulting from COVID-19’, issued by the Irish Government, Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment on 26 March 2020, p. 5. | |
| 4 Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1). | |
| 5 Judgment of 8 June 2023, VB (Information for a person convicted in absentia) | |
| (C‑430/22 and C‑468/22, EU:C:2023:458, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited). | |
| 6 See point 39. | |
| 1 Jezik izvirnika: angleščina. | |
| 2 Uvodni nagovor generalnega direktorja SZO na tiskovni konferenci o COVID-19, 11. marec 2020. | |
| 3 Glej „Smernice, v zvezi s pravico potnikov, da zaradi izrednih okoliščin, ki so bile posledica COVID-19, odstopijo od pogodb o paketnem potovanju“, ki jih je 26. marca 2020 sprejela irska vlada, Ministrstvo za gospodarstvo, trgovino in zaposlovanje, str. 5. | |
| 4 Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 25. novembra 2015 o paketnih potovanjih in povezanih potovalnih aranžmajih, spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 2006/2004 in Direktive 2011/83/EU Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta ter razveljavitvi Direktive Sveta 90/314/EGS (UL 2015, L 326, str. 1). | |
| 5 Sodba z dne 8. junija 2023, VB (Obvestitev osebe, obsojene v nenavzočnosti) (C‑430/22 in C‑468/22, EU:C:2023:458, točka 24 in navedena sodna praksa). | |
| 6 Glej točko 39. |