Jurisprudence

  • Informations concernant l’affaire
    • ID national: Council of State, Judgment 441663 Council of State, Judgment 441663
    • État membre: France
    • Nom commun:N/A
    • Type de décision: Décision de la Cour suprême
    • Date de la décision: 13/10/2023
    • Juridiction: 13/10/2023
    • Objet:
    • Demandeur:
    • Défendeur:
    • Mots clés: package travel, travel, national law, refund
  • Articles de la directive
    Package Travel Directive, Article 4 Package Travel Directive, Article 4 Package Travel Directive, Article 12
  • Note introductive

    ECLI:FR:CECHR:2023:441663.20231013

    The regime provided for by Ordinance no. 2020-315 of 25 March 2020, known as the “Tourism Ordinance”, which had allowed tourism operators to issue credit notes instead of refunds for cancelled travels due to exceptional circumstances, is not compatible with European Union law, specifically Article 12 of Directive (EU) no. 2015/2302 of 25 November 2015 on package travel and related travel services. This article addresses the regime for cancelling package travel, as well as the right of withdrawal before the start of the package, stipulating that travellers affected by the termination of a package travel contract following the occurrence of “exceptional and unavoidable circumstances” are entitled to full reimbursement of all payments made in respect of that package no later than fourteen days after such termination.

  • Faits

    France adopted a temporary law, Ordinance no. 2020-315 of 25 March 2020 on the financial conditions for cancelling certain tourist travel and holiday contracts in the event of exceptional and unavoidable circumstances, known as the “Tourism Ordinance”, authorising tourism professionals to issue customers, whose tourist services were cancelled due to the Covid-19 health crisis, with an eighteen-month credit note to alleviate financial strain. This derogation was immediately challenged by certain consumer associations, leading to an interim relief application to the Council of Stateseeking a suspension of the ordinance. Subsequently, a full appeal was lodged to compel the Council of State to rule on the validity of the order of 25 March 2020. The Council of State preferred to stay the proceedings and refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling, asking it to rule on the compliance of the Tourism Ordinance with Article 12 of the aforementioned Directive .The Council of State first asked the Court of Justice whether Article 12 of the Directive should be interpreted as requiring the organiser of a package holiday, in the event of termination of the contract, to refund in money the full amount of the payments made in respect of the package, or as authorising a refund by way of equivalence, in particular in the form of a credit note equal to the amount of the payments made (i.e. a "bon à valoir", known in the context as a "avoir covid").

  • Question juridique

    The key issue was whether the French ordinance, by allowing refunds via credit notes instead of cash repayments for cancelled package travels due to “exceptional and unavoidable circumstances”, contravened EU law.

  • Décision

    The Council of State annulled the Tourism Ordinance, aligning with the CJEU’s interpretation.

    The European Court of Justice determined that this concept (credit notes) “is [necessarily] to be understood as a return of the payments made under a package in the form of a sum of money” (pt 26).

    Furthermore, the Court of Justice dismissed the argument presented by the French Government in that case, according to which the Covid-19 pandemic, while falling within “exceptional and unavoidable circumstances”, also constituted a case of force majeure, covering cases going beyond what was envisaged when the Directive was adopted and permitting the adoption of national legislation derogating from the obligation to reimburse in full.

    URL: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000048223372

    Texte intégral: Texte intégral

  • Affaires liées

    Aucun résultat disponible

  • Doctrine

    Aucun résultat disponible

  • Résultat

    This decision reaffirmed the traveller’s right to a monetary refund under EU law and highlighted the limitations on national governments to deviate from EU directives, even in extraordinary circumstances. The ruling is consistent with a similar CJEU judgmenthanded down on 8 June 2023 (Case C-540/21, Commission v Slovakia, JT 2023, No 265, p. 13, obs. X. Delpech). The Court of Justice followed the same reasoning and found that by adopting a legislative amendment temporarily depriving travellers of their right to cancel a package travel contract free of charge and receive a full refund, Slovakia had failed to fulfil its obligation under the Travel Directive.