(1)

Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) modernised the legal framework for package travel in light of market developments and advances in technology. That Directive sought to address new ways of booking travel services, including customised combinations of travel services, which were not covered by Council Directive 90/314/EEC (4) or which fell within a legal grey area, while strengthening the rights of travellers in various respects. Directive (EU) 2015/2302 also aimed to ensure fairer competition between the different types of travel businesses operating in the package travel market.

(2)

In order to pursue those objectives, Directive (EU) 2015/2302 broadened the definition of the term ‘package’ compared to Directive 90/314/EEC. Directive (EU) 2015/2302 further clarified existing rights of travellers and introduced new rights, including the right for travellers to terminate a package travel contract under certain conditions in the event of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances without paying a termination fee. In addition, Directive (EU) 2015/2302 introduced the concept of ‘linked travel arrangement’.

(3)

Although Directive (EU) 2015/2302 has worked well overall, several challenges have emerged since the start of its application on 1 July 2018. In particular, the COVID-19 pandemic and related government measures had a significant impact on both the travel industry and travellers and showed that certain provisions of that Directive, including those on the information to be provided to travellers, should be clarified.

(4)

Therefore, it is necessary to close the gaps identified in the current rules, and to clarify and simplify certain concepts and provisions, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 for the benefit of travellers and travel businesses, amongst which there are a large number of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.

(5)

Overall, the updated definition of ‘package’ in Directive (EU) 2015/2302 is considered to have been effective. By contrast, the rules on ‘linked travel arrangements’, also introduced by that Directive, have considerably complicated the legislative framework, including with regard to the information to be provided to travellers. That additional complexity has given rise to legal uncertainty in the delimitation between packages and linked travel arrangements, as well as between linked travel arrangements and stand-alone travel services. There is no evidence that those rules on linked travel arrangements have resulted in tangible benefits for travellers. Therefore, it is appropriate to simplify Directive (EU) 2015/2302 by deleting the provisions on linked travel arrangements, by deleting Annex II thereto, which consists of five information forms for linked travel arrangements, and by making certain adjustments to the definition of ‘package’.

(6)

The principle underlying the definition of ‘package’ should remain that there is a close link between different travel services booked for the purpose of the same trip or holiday.

(7)

Travellers should receive clear information on whether a given combination of travel services constitutes a package or not, since, in certain booking situations, this might not be clear to them. In order to increase legal certainty, it is therefore necessary, in booking situations where the conditions for a package are not met but traders invite travellers to purchase additional types of travel service for the same trip or holiday, to require traders to inform travellers that the relevant travel services will not constitute a package and that travellers will not be protected under Directive (EU) 2015/2302. That requirement should apply where the invitation to purchase additional types of travel service is made before a traveller has purchased a first type of travel service but also where the invitation is made after a traveller has booked a first type of travel service. In cases where the invitation to purchase additional types of travel service is made before the traveller has concluded a first booking and the traveller subsequently books the relevant travel services within a period of 24 hours, at the same point of sale, a close link exists between those bookings even if not all the conditions for a package are met, such as the presentation of an inclusive or total price or the selection of the travel services before the traveller agrees to pay. Therefore, if in such cases a trader does not clearly inform the traveller, at the time of making the invitation, that the combination of travel services will not constitute a package, that combination should be considered to be a package protected under Directive (EU) 2015/2302, and the trader should be deemed to be the organiser of that package.

(8)

In booking situations where the trader invites the traveller to purchase additional travel services, an ‘invitation’ should be understood as any situation where the trader encourages or prompts the traveller to book an additional type of travel service for the envisaged trip or holiday. That may include, for example, an email containing a link to a booking facility, a prompt integrated in the booking process or a phone call. In such cases, the trader typically provides the traveller with a selection of offers based on the traveller’s interest in a particular destination and travel period. Where such offers are made in the form of an invitation to purchase, as defined in Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), namely in the form of a commercial communication which indicates the characteristics of the product or service and its price, that should be seen as a strong indication of an invitation. Such invitations to purchase include instances where a trader asks the traveller to acknowledge an interest in additional types of travel service for the same trip or holiday, in order to provide offers for those travel services in the form of an invitation to purchase, as defined in Directive 2005/29/EC, directly with or after the confirmation of the first booking. On the other hand, the mere availability of booking facilities for other travel services on a trader’s website or application or at its business premises, a general reference to such booking facilities, or advertising of travel services triggered by metadata from earlier searches for travel services should not be considered sufficient to constitute an invitation to purchase additional travel services.

(9)

One of the definitions of package has proved to be too narrow, namely that referred to in Article 3, point (2)(b)(v), of Directive (EU) 2015/2302, which requires the transmission of the traveller’s name, payment details and email address from one trader to another. It is therefore appropriate to consider bookings of different types of travel service for the same trip or holiday as a package where the trader that is party to the first contract transfers the traveller’s personal data which enables the traveller to be identified as a contracting party to another trader or other traders that are party to a second or further contract, and where the contract or contracts with the other trader or traders are concluded at the latest 24 hours after the confirmation of the booking of the first travel service. Such data should enable the traders concerned to establish that the same traveller is party to the relevant contracts and could include, for example, the traveller’s name, payment details, email address, telephone number or social media account. Data that does not enable the traders concerned to establish that the same traveller is party to the relevant contracts, such as an IP address identifying a device, should not be considered sufficient. The reference to the transfer of the traveller’s personal data is intended to make the definition more future-proof. Such transfer indicates a close link between the relevant contracts and, consequently, the creation of a package.

(10)

Regarding packages where, for example, accommodation is combined with ‘other tourist services’, but which do not contain any carriage of passengers, the general criterion of ‘a significant proportion’ of the value of the combination, applying to tourist services, should be replaced with the more specific criterion of ‘at least 25 %’ of the value of the combination, in order to enhance legal certainty. It should also be recalled that other tourist services that are intrinsically part of travel services, such as other tourist services that are related to accommodation, are not considered to be travel services in their own right. Consequently, their inclusion cannot give rise to the creation of a package, even if their value represents at least 25 % of the total price. The recitals of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 contain examples of services that can be considered to be intrinsically part of travel services, such as access to certain on-site facilities at hotels or other types of accommodation. Furthermore, it should be recalled that other tourist services which are selected and purchased only after the performance of a travel service, such as accommodation, has started will not lead to the creation of a package, even if their value represents at least 25 % of the total price.

(11)

As demonstrated in particular during the COVID-19 pandemic, the absence of business-to-business rules on refunds to organisers of packages for travel services cancelled or not performed by service providers, the absence of rules on vouchers, and uncertainty over whether refund claims and vouchers for cancelled packages are covered by insolvency protection can cause difficulties in relation to refunds to travellers, especially where unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances lead to numerous cancellations and affect many travel destinations. Therefore, it is important to ensure that travellers’ payments are effectively protected at all times, including in times of crisis. Furthermore, it should be ensured that the national insolvency protection systems are resilient and provide more uniform protection.

(12)

While Directive (EU) 2015/2302 requires organisers to inform travellers about arrangements for payment, including any down payments to be made, it does not lay down any rules limiting the amount of such down payments or regulating the timetable for the payment of the balance. Member States are able to regulate such aspects, provided that such rules are in conformity with Union law.

(13)

Where a travel service included in a package is cancelled or not performed and advance payments have been made to the respective service provider, organisers should be entitled to receive a refund of the payments made from the travel service provider within seven days. The purpose of that right to a refund is to enable organisers to comply with their obligation to refund travellers within 14 days in cases where the package travel contract as a whole is also terminated. Where a travel service provider cancels or fails to provide a service included in a package but the package travel contract continues to exist, the right to a refund within seven days serves to enable organisers to make alternative arrangements.

(14)

In certain situations, voluntary vouchers can serve as a useful alternative to refunds. Vouchers can give more flexibility to organisers, particularly when they are required to make numerous refunds within a short period of time. At the same time, vouchers can be acceptable to travellers who do not require an immediate refund, provided that there are specific legal guarantees. Therefore, clear rules for such guarantees should be established. Those guarantees should include compulsory information on the voluntary nature and the characteristics of the voucher, including clear information that the traveller’s refund right is suspended only if the traveller expressly accepts the voucher. The requirement that the traveller must expressly accept the voucher means that acceptance cannot be implied, but that the traveller must express it actively. Such acceptance should be expressed using a durable medium. Vouchers should be issued using a durable medium and include information on the characteristics of the voucher and the traveller’s rights. That information should include the amount that the traveller is entitled to receive as a refund (the ‘traveller’s refund right’) and the value of the voucher. Organisers should be able to make vouchers more attractive, for example by increasing their value compared to the traveller’s refund right. In such cases, insolvency protection should be limited to the amount of the traveller’s refund right.

(15)

On grounds of legal certainty, rules should be established on the validity period of vouchers and any possible extension. It is also appropriate to lay down that, during the validity period of a voucher, the traveller’s right to a refund is suspended, and to specify the instances where such suspension ends and the traveller regains that refund right. Since vouchers have a specific monetary value, it is appropriate to lay down that they may be used for any travel service offered by the organiser, may be redeemed in parts and may be transferred once only, without organisers being able to charge a fee for the transfer. For a valid transfer, the traveller transferring the voucher should inform the organiser of the identity of the transferee, so that the transferee can redeem the voucher or receive a refund. It should be possible for the confirmation of the transfer to take the form of a marking of the voucher, for example physically or electronically, to clearly indicate that the transfer has taken place.

(16)

Member States can provide for mechanisms ensuring refunds to travellers in accordance with the legal requirements, for cases where packages are cancelled due to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances and where organisers are unable to comply with their refund obligations. In order to increase transparency, Member States that introduce or maintain such mechanisms should be obliged to inform the Commission and the central contact points of the other Member States about them. Such mechanisms are normally funded exclusively through contributions from organisers. Only in exceptional and duly justified circumstances can such mechanisms be co-financed by Member States, and their introduction is without prejudice to Union rules on State aid.

(17)

It should be clarified that the termination of a package travel contract is possible where it can be reasonably expected that its performance will be significantly affected by unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances. The assessment as to whether unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances will have significant effects on the performance of the package should be based on a prediction, at the moment of the termination of the package travel contract, of the likelihood that the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances will have significant effects on the performance of the package, which requires a case-by-case assessment. Where a traveller terminates the package travel contract, such assessment should be made from the perspective of an average traveller, who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, based on information available at the date of termination of the package travel contract in question. The effects of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances occurring at the place of departure or occurring at the place of destination or its immediate vicinity, or affecting the journey to or from the destination, including the various places connected with the start and return of the trip in question, should be taken into account where they significantly affect the performance of travel services included in the package travel contract. The place of departure should be understood as the place where the performance of the travel services begins under the package travel contract. Circumstances affecting only the journey to the destination or the return journey should not be taken into account if that journey is not part of the package travel contract, including the transport of the passenger to the agreed place of departure. Circumstances already known to, or foreseeable by, the traveller at the time of concluding the package travel contract, and which have not significantly deteriorated since then, cannot constitute the basis for exercising the right to terminate that contract without paying a termination fee.

(18)

Unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances include objective situations, 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. Unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances should not only cover circumstances which make it objectively impossible to perform a package but also circumstances which, without preventing such performance, mean that the package cannot be performed without exposing the travellers concerned to risks to their health and safety. In this context, certain risks may affect certain groups of travellers particularly severely due to their vulnerability.

(19)

Official statements or recommendations issued by the competent authorities of a Member State advising travellers against travelling to a particular area may, by their nature, have considerable evidential value as to the occurrence, in the countries to which they relate, of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances and of the consequences thereof for the performance of the package concerned. Such statements or recommendations, or the fact that travellers will be subject to serious restrictions at the travel destination or in the Member State of residence or departure after returning from the trip or holiday, such as quarantine requirements for a significant period, can therefore, along with other factors, be important elements to be taken into account when considering whether the termination of the package travel contract due to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances is justified. The relevance of specific official statements or recommendations for the termination of the package travel contract at issue should be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account, amongst other factors, the nature of the circumstances at issue and the time between the termination of that contract and the scheduled start of the package, and consequently the likelihood of a significant change in those circumstances. However, the existence of such statements or recommendations should not be a condition for establishing the existence of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances or the effects of such circumstances on the performance of the package.

(20)

It should also be clarified that the 14-day refund period triggered by the termination of the package travel contract applies regardless of whether the traveller specifically asks for a refund.

(21)

In order to ensure effective and uniform protection of travellers and a level playing field for organisers, it should be provided that the insolvency protection of organisers covers all payments made by or on behalf of travellers in the event of the organiser’s insolvency, including where a traveller was entitled to a refund or had received a voucher from the organiser prior to its insolvency.

(22)

Within the parameters laid down in Directive (EU) 2015/2302, Member States should define their insolvency protection systems applicable within their territories, including the associated procedures and the methods for providing information on insolvency protection through the most effective communication channels available. It is important to require that, as soon as an insolvency occurs, travellers be provided with all necessary information. Accordingly, Member States should designate the relevant entity or entities responsible for providing the necessary information.

(23)

In order to ensure the effectiveness of insolvency protection for travellers at all times, it should be provided that the security is sufficient to cover the costs of refunds and, where applicable, repatriations. Such security should take into account that insolvency might occur at a time when an organiser holds the highest amounts of payments. Any increases in those amounts due to a higher volume of packages sold in a given period compared to anticipated sales should be taken into account. It should be clarified that Member States should supervise the insolvency protection of organisers and monitor the availability of insolvency protection. Where necessary to ensure effective insolvency protection, Member States should be able to require additional mechanisms, such as a back-up fund, to complement, for instance, the protection provided by insurance policies. Such back-up funds should normally be funded exclusively through contributions from organisers and should be co-financed by Member States only in exceptional and duly justified circumstances. Insofar as such measures involve State aid, Union rules on State aid apply.

(24)

Regarding refunds of travellers’ payments in the event of an organiser’s insolvency, the period within which such refunds are to be made following the submission of the necessary documents should be further specified. The information to be provided to travellers in the event of an organiser’s insolvency should include information on the documents that travellers must submit in order to apply for a refund of their payments. Travellers should be requested to submit only those documents necessary for the examination of the request in accordance with national provisions and taking into account the requirements of the specific entity or authority responsible for the secure and efficient processing of refund requests.

(25)

It is also appropriate to provide that Member States be able to require retailers to take out insolvency protection in addition to organisers.

(26)

It should be clarified that the central contact points are responsible for the exchange of information relating to insolvency protection and related matters, including any mechanisms to ensure timely refunds in the event of the termination of package travel contracts.

(27)

It is important that travellers are properly informed of their rights, are able to understand the information provided to them and have access to that information when they need it. Therefore, certain changes should be made to the pre-contractual information requirements, the content of package travel contracts, and the standard information forms set out in Annex I to Directive (EU) 2015/2302. For example, those standard information forms should specify the trader responsible for providing refunds where a package travel contract is terminated. The right to terminate a package travel contract without paying a termination fee due to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances should be presented alongside the possibility of terminating that contract subject to a termination fee. In addition, organisers should be obliged to attach the standard information form to the package travel contract, so that it is available to travellers after the conclusion of that contract, together with contact details of the relevant traders. Information should be provided to travellers in a clear and comprehensible manner and, where applicable, in accordance with the accessibility requirements laid down in Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). It should be recalled that, where the services concerned fall within the scope of Directive (EU) 2019/882, accessibility for persons with disabilities is to be ensured in accordance with the accessibility requirements set out in Annex I to that Directive.

(28)

In order to enhance the effectiveness of Directive (EU) 2015/2302, organisers should be required to comply with certain standards when handling complaints, including an obligation to acknowledge receipt within a period of seven days and to provide a reasoned reply within a period of 60 days. In cases where communication is made by post, the organiser should be considered to have complied with those obligations if the date of the postmark falls within those respective periods.

(29)

Access to fair and efficient dispute resolution mechanisms is also important for the enforcement of rights of travellers under Directive (EU) 2015/2302. Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (7), which lays down the minimum requirements for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) bodies for consumer disputes that must be in place in each Member State, also applies to disputes between travellers and traders under Directive (EU) 2015/2302. Directive (EU) 2025/2647 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8), which amends Directive 2013/11/EU with the objective of strengthening consumers’ access to ADR, obliges Member States to promote participation of traders and consumers in ADR. Its recitals mention that particular attention should be paid to the participation of traders and consumers in ADR mechanisms in certain sectors. It should continue to be mandatory for package travel contracts to contain information on ADR mechanisms pursuant to Directive 2013/11/EU and, where applicable, on the ADR entity by which the relevant trader is covered. Traders should inform travellers on available ADR mechanisms also when replying negatively to a complaint received from a traveller.

(30)

This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This Directive, in particular, respects the freedom to conduct a business laid down in Article 16 of the Charter, while ensuring a high level of consumer protection within the Union, in accordance with Article 38 of the Charter.

(31)

The Commission should submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the application of this Directive within five years of its entry into force. While the impact of this Directive on travel businesses, including micro, small and medium-sized organisers, has been carefully assessed, it is appropriate for that report to take into account the impact of its application on such organisers. Furthermore, that report should include an assessment of the application of Article 5a of Directive (EU) 2015/2302. Where necessary, that report should be accompanied by legislative proposals.

(32)

Since the objective of this Directive, namely to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market in relation to package travel and to the achievement of a high and an as uniform as possible level of consumer protection in that sector, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(33)

Directive (EU) 2015/2302 should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

the title is replaced by the following:

‘Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel, 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’

(2)

Article 1 is replaced by the following:

(3)

Article 2 is amended as follows:

(4)

Article 3 is amended as follows:

(5)

in Article 5, paragraph 1 is amended as follows:

(6)

the following Article is inserted:

(7)

Article 7 is amended as follows:

(8)

Article 12 is amended as follows:

(9)

the following Article is inserted:

(10)

the following Article is inserted:

(11)

Article 17 is replaced with the following:

(12)

Article 18 is amended as follows:

(13)

Chapter VI, containing Article 19, is deleted;

(14)

in Article 21, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘Member States shall ensure that a trader is liable for any errors due to technical defects in the booking system which are attributable to it and, where the trader has agreed to arrange the booking of a package, for the errors made during the booking process.’

(15)

Article 22 is replaced by the following:

(16)

in Article 23, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

(17)

Annex I is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Directive;

(18)

Annex II is deleted.