REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council on package travel and linked travel arrangements
Date: 2021-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: State aid, application of EU law, coronavirus disease, epidemic, financial solvency, liability, package travel, passenger rights, reservation, travel agency

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.2.2021  COM(2021) 90 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council on package travel and linked travel arrangements  
 
 
1.  The Directive  

Directive  (EU)  2015/2302  on  package  travel  and  linked  travel  arrangements  (‘the  PTD’  or 
‘the  Directive’)  was  adopted  on  25  November  20151.  It  replaced  Council  Directive 
90/314/EEC  of  13  June  1990  on  package  travel,  package  holidays  and  package  tours.  The 
PTD  builds  on  the  key  features  of  the  1990  Directive,  including  information  requirements, 
provisions on contract changes and liabilities, as well as the protection of consumers in case 
of  the  organiser’s  insolvency.  The  new  PTD  significantly  extends  the  level  of  consumer 
protection, taking into consideration new online  booking models for combinations of travel 
services.  

After its report on the provisions of the PTD applying to online bookings made at different 
points  of  sale  issued  in  June  2019  (‘click-through  bookings’  report)2,  the  Commission 
submits  this  general  report  on  the  application  of  the  PTD  in  accordance  with  Article  26, 
sentence 2, of the PTD to the European Parliament and the Council3.  
The stakeholder expert group to support the application of the PTD4 and national authorities5 
were consulted for the preparation of this report. 

1.1. The main elements of the Directive 

Under the PTD, the organiser of a package is responsible for the performance of all services 
forming part of the package, irrespective of whether those services are to be performed by the 
organiser  itself  or  by  other  service  providers.  When  replacing  the  1990  Directive,  the  PTD 
extended the concept of ‘package’, modelled originally on pre-arranged package holidays, to 
customised or tailor-made holidays that a trader, including traditional tour operators, online 
or off-line travel agencies, airlines and hotels, composes of different travel services selected 
by the traveller. All those traders can be ‘organisers’ for the purposes of the PTD.   

The main elements of the PTD6 are: 

  The  wide  definition  of  ‘package’,  including  ready-made  holidays  offered  by  a  tour 
operator and the customised selection of components for a trip or holiday by the traveller 
at a single online or off-line point of sale;   

  The introduction of the concept of Linked Travel Arrangement (LTA), which is a looser 
combination  of  two  or more  travel  services  for  the  same  trip  or  holiday  than  a  package. 

1    Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package 
travel and linked travel arrangement, 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 L 326 of 
11.12.2015, p. 1.   

2    Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the provisions of Directive 

(EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and 
linked travel arrangements applying to online bookings made at different points of sale, COM(2019)270 
final, 21.6.2019, accompanied by the Staff Working Document SWD(2019) 270 final. 

3    This report covers the 27 EU Member States. Where appropriate, it refers to information concerning the 

United Kingdom (UK), which left the EU on 31 January 2020.   

4    Stakeholder expert group to support the application of the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements 

Directive (2015/2302) (E03617), 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3617&news=
1  

5    Consumer Protection Cooperation Committee, Central Contact Points established under the PTD, Tourism 

Advisory Committee.  

6    See also the summary available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/LSU/?uri=CELEX%3A32015L2302&qid=1529931942475  

1 

 
 
                                                           
Contrary to the organiser of a package, traders facilitating an LTA are liable only for the 
performance of travel services they carry out themselves. A combination of travel services 
qualifies as LTA when one trader facilitates  

  the  purchase  of  different  services  through  separate  booking  processes  during  a  single 

visit to a travel agent or website or,  

  in a targeted manner the purchase of an additional travel service from another supplier 
within 24 hours after a traveller receives confirmation of the booking of the first travel 
service  (e.g.  through  providing  in  the  booking  confirmation  a  link  to  another  service 
provider);  

  enhanced  information  requirements:  businesses  must  inform  travellers  whether  they  are 
offered  a  package  or  linked  travel  arrangement  and  on  their  key  rights  through 
standardised  information  forms.  They  must  provide  information  on  the  features  and 
characteristics of the package, its price and any additional charges; 

  companies selling package holidays must provide security for refunds and the repatriation 
of  travellers  in  case  organisers  go  bankrupt.  To  a  limited  extent,  such  guarantee  also 
applies  to  LTAs.  Traders  facilitating  an  LTA  must  provide  a  money-back  guarantee  for 
payments  they  receive  from  the  traveller  in  case  the  relevant  travel  service  is  not 
performed due to their insolvency. This guarantee covers also repatriation when the trader 
facilitating an LTA is responsible for the carriage of passengers, e.g. an airline. The PTD 
lays  down  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  for  the  insolvency  protection  provided  by 
organisers or traders facilitating an LTA in accordance with the law of their Member State 
of establishment; 

  strict rules on liability: apart from certain exceptions, the organiser of a package is liable if 

something goes wrong, no matter who performs the travel services;  

  stronger  cancellation  rights:  travellers  may  cancel  their  package  holiday  for  any  reason 
against  a  reasonable  termination  fee.  They  may  cancel  their  holiday  free  of  charge,  in 
particular,  in  case  of  “unavoidable  and  extraordinary  circumstances”7  at  the  travel 
destination  which  affect  the  performance  of  the  package  (e.g.  war,  natural  disasters  or 
outbreak of  a serious disease) or if the price of the package is  raised by  over 8% of the 
original price; 

  assistance to  travellers:  where travellers cannot  return from  their package holiday due to 
“unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances”, they are granted accommodation for up to 
three nights, unless longer periods are provided for in Union passenger rights legislation. 
In  general,  organisers  must  provide assistance to travellers in  difficulty, in  particular, by 
providing information on health services and consular assistance. 

1.2.  Market data 

In  2017,  packages  represented  around  9%  of  all  tourism  trips  of  EU27  residents  and  had  a 
share  of  around  21%  of  the  total  tourism  expenditure8.  On  average,  each  EU  tourist  spent 
around 762 EUR on a package trip within EU27 (overall expenditure: around 58 billion EUR) 

7    The concept of “unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances” replaces the “force majeure” concept used in 

the 1990 Directive. 

8    All tourism trips in 2017: around 1.1 billion; total expenditure during those trips was around 444 billion 

EUR; ESTAT, 2017 data, Number of trips by type of organisation (from 2014 onwards) 
[TOUR_DEM_TTORG__custom_410560]; Expenditure by type of organisation (from 2014 onwards) 
[TOUR_DEM_EXORG__custom_410607].  

2 

 
 
                                                           
and  1756  EUR  on  a  package  trip  to  the  rest  of  the  world  (overall  expenditure:  around  36 
billion  EUR)9.  By  far  the  main  destination  country  within  Europe  was  Spain  (overall 
expenditure: around 15 billion EUR).  

According  to  a  Market  Monitoring  Survey  on  packaged  holidays  and  tours10,  in  2020,  a 
majority of EU27 consumers (81%) trusted the packaged holiday and tour services providers. 
This  figure  varies  to  some  extent  by  Member  State,  from  a  high  of  90%  (in  Croatia  and 
Portugal) to a low of 60% (in Poland). A large majority (91%) report positive experiences of 
making  purchases  in  the  market,  with  few  notable  differences  between  countries  or 
sociodemographic subgroups.  

Consumers who made their purchase at a travel agency generally paid one total price for the 
different services (82%). In contrast, 25% of those who purchased services online, did so on a 
single  website  but  paid  for  each  service  separately,  while  19%  purchased  them  on  one 
website  and  then  clicked  on  a  link  on  that  site  to  buy  another  service  from  a  different 
provider.  

11% of consumers experienced problems with the services they purchased, or with operators, 
that gave them legitimate reason to complain. Of this group, 40% experienced financial loss 
while 79% experienced non-financial impacts such as loss of time, anger, frustration, stress or 
anxiety. Of all those who experienced problems, the majority (62%) filed a complaint. Just 
over  half  (54%)  reported  being  satisfied  with  the  outcome  of  the  complaint,  while  42% 
reported being dissatisfied. 

2.  Transposition  

The  Member  States  had  to  transpose  the  Package  Travel  Directive  by  1  January  2018. 
Between February 2016 and May 2017, the Commission organised five workshops to assist 
the Member States in the transposition of the Directive11.  

2.1. Respect of transposition deadline 

In March 2018, the Commission opened infringement procedures for non-communication of 
national  transposition  measures  against  14  Member  States.  Two  Member  States  transposed 
the  Directive  only  after  the  Commission  had  issued  a  reasoned  opinion  pursuant  to  Article 
258  of  the  TFEU.  By  March  2019,  all  Member  States  had  notified  the  Commission  of  the 
complete transposition of the Directive.  

2.2. Conformity assessment of transposition measures  

A  conformity  assessment  study  of  the  national  transposition  measures  conducted  by  an 
external contractor was finalised at the beginning of 2021. According to that study, there may 
be, to various degrees, potential non-conformity issues in all Member States, e.g. as regards 

9    Expenditure on package trips includes the amount paid for the package and all other tourism expenditure 

during the trip. 

10   The survey was conducted by Ipsos between 27 July and 26 October 2020 and covered a reference period of 
one year preceding the survey interview. It is not possible to identify to what extent the respondents based 
their answers on experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of the Market Monitoring Survey 
are available on the European Commission’s website at 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/consumers/consumer-protection/evidence-based-consumer-policy/market-
monitoring_en  

11   See minutes of transposition workshops, available on the European Commission’s website at 

https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=35324. Those minutes do not reflect the official 
position of the Commission regarding the interpretation of the PTD.   

3 

 
 
                                                           
definitions,  pre-contractual  information  requirements,  travellers’  termination  rights  and 
termination  fees,  consequences  of  lack  of  or  improper  performance  of  the  contract,  the 
obligations of traders facilitating LTAs, liability for booking errors and the imperative nature 
of the PTD. The problems identified do not show a general trend, except for the fact that the 
proper transposition of the provisions on insolvency protection, notably its effectiveness, may 
not be fully guaranteed in many Member States. The Commission will analyse the findings of 
the study and, where appropriate, consider entering into a dialogue with the Member States 
and/or opening infringement proceedings.        

3.  Application and enforcement 

The Member States were obliged to apply their rules transposing the PTD from 1 July 2018.  

3.1. Awareness-raising  

The Commission issued a press release12 to draw attention to the entry into application of the 
new  rules,  provided  information  for  travellers13  and  businesses14  on  its  YOUR  EUROPE 
website  and  included  package  travel  in  its  #yourEUright  communication  campaign  about 
several  key  consumer  rights  launched  in  201915.  Nonetheless,  consumer  representatives 
consider  that  many  consumers  are  not  sufficiently  aware  of  their  rights,  in  particular  in 
relation to their rights when they want to terminate a package travel contract.  

3.2. Main challenges related to the application of the Directive 

In the transposition phase and the first years of application, in particular the broad definition 
of  ‘package’,  the  new  concept  of  LTA,  the  delimitation  between  the  two  concepts  and  the 
standard  information  forms  gave  rise  to  questions  from  stakeholders  and  authorities. 
Moreover,  challenges  materialised  in  relation  to  insolvency  protection,  in  particular  in  the 
context of the Thomas Cook bankruptcy (see chapter 4), and the COVID-19 pandemic (see 
chapter 5). 

3.2.1.  Broad scope of package definition 

Any combination of at least two different types of travel services for the same trip or holiday 
combined by one trader, including at the request of the traveller, is a package, if all services 
are included in  a single  contract  or if other criteria are met,  e.g. an inclusive or total  price. 
Exemptions  from  the  scope  of  the  Directive  are  very  limited16.  This  led  to  uncertainties 
during and after the transposition of the PTD as regards the question of whether the Directive 
applies to providers of tourist accommodation services that include free access to local leisure 
activities or transport services (e.g. ‘tourist cards’) in their offer. 

Examples:  1.  A  farmer  who  advertises  on  its  website  horse-riding  holidays,  including 
accommodation and horse-riding classes at a total price is an organiser of a package under the 
PTD.  

12    IP/18/4293 of 29 June 2018, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_4293.  
13   https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/holidays/package-travel/index_en.htm 
14   https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/selling-in-eu/selling-goods-services/package-travel/index_en.htm 
15   https://europa.eu/youreuright/your-rights_en#node-24  
16   See Article 2(2) PTD which provides three cases of exemptions: 1. Trips of less than 24 hours unless 

overnight accommodation is included; 2. trips offered occasionally, on a not-for-profit basis and only to a 
limited group of travellers; 3. trips purchased within the framework of a general arrangement for business 
travel. 

4 

 
 
                                                           
2.  A travel agent who advises his/her customer about possible safari tours and, in accordance 
with  the  latter’s  selection,  books  a  flight,  accommodation  in  different  lodges  and  a  guided 
tour,  for  which  the  traveller  agrees  to  pay  once  he  has  selected  all  the  components,  is  the 
organiser  of  that  package  and  liable  for  the  performance  of  the  different  included  travel 
services. 

Representatives  of  small  undertakings  in  the  tourism  and  leisure  sector  (e.g.  rural  tourism, 
sport  clubs)  consider  that  small  or  very  small  undertakings  should  be  exempted  from  the 
PTD, especially where no transport is  offered. Consumer and travel  business  organisations, 
however, consider that additional exemptions would not be an appropriate solution.  

3.2.2.  Linked travel arrangements (LTA) 

The concept of LTA was introduced taking into account market developments where traders 
(mainly  online  but  also  off-line)  assist  travellers  in  concluding  separate  contracts  with 
individual travel  service providers for the same trip  within a short period of time.  It  covers 
two  scenarios  where  a  trader  facilitates  the  booking  of  travel  services  provided  by  other 
providers and extends the application of certain rules of the PTD to such business models.  

Examples: 1. A travel agent books a flight for a customer and the traveller pays for the flight. 
Then, still during the same visit at the travel agency, the travel agent books accommodation 
at a hotel for the same trip, which had not been selected and availability of the hotel had not 
been checked before the booking of the flight, and requests payment or a down payment for 
the hotel. Through separate selection and separate payment of each travel service, the travel 
agency has facilitated an LTA.  

2. In the e-mail confirmation of a flight booking, the airline provides a link to a hotel booking 
website  offering  the  traveller  the  possibility  to  book  a  hotel  at  the  travel  destination.  If  the 
traveller  clicks  on  the  link  and,  within  24  hours  after  receiving  the  flight  booking 
confirmation,  books  a  room  for  his  trip,  the  airline  has  facilitated  an  LTA  in  a  ‘targeted 
manner’.  

While recitals 12 and 13 of the PTD give some guidance as regards the concept of LTA, the 
application  of  this  concept  has  arguably  raised  the  highest  number  of  questions.  Consumer 
and business stakeholders consider the LTA definition overly complex and difficult to apply 
in practice.  

It  is  not  always  clear  what  ‘facilitation’  and  ‘facilitation  in  a  targeted  manner’  actually 
means.  Recital  12  clarifies  that  the  posting  of  links  through  which  travellers  are  merely 
informed  about  further  travel  services  in  a  general  way  should  not  be  considered  as 
facilitating  an  LTA.  Hence,  an  active  promotion,  based  on  a  commercial  link  involving 
remuneration between the trader facilitating the  procurement  of an  additional travel  service 
and the other trader, will generally be required (see recital 13).  

A challenge with the application of the LTA concept is linked to the fact that, in the second 
example provided above, the insolvency protection obligation, where applicable, depends on 
an  uncertain  event  in  the  future,  i.e.  the  fact  of  whether  the  traveller  books  an  additional 
travel service from another trader within 24 hours after the first booking. If this is the case, 
the  provider  of  the  first  travel  service  who  receives  pre-payments  from  the  traveller  has  to 
provide insolvency protection for those payments. Although Article 19(4) PTD requires the 
second trader to inform the trader facilitating the LTA about the conclusion of a contract with 
the  traveller,  the  first  trader  does  not  necessarily  have  all  the  information  to  determine  in 

5 

 
 
which  cases  an  LTA  was  formed.  It  is  reported  that  the  providers  of  the  additional  travel 
service  do  not  always  comply  with  their  reporting  obligations,  e.g.  due  to  lack  of  technical 
means  for  secured  exchange  of  data  or  fear  to  breach  the  General  Data  Protection 
Regulation17.  Such  uncertainty  could  lead  to  difficulties  when  arranging  the  required 
insolvency protection.  

Concerns have also been raised that, with the exception of insolvency protection and certain 
pre-contractual information requirements, the PTD does not provide for the liability of traders 
facilitating  an  LTA  for  the  performance  of  the  relevant  services.  Consumer  representatives 
are  concerned  that  travel  service  providers  misleadingly  present  themselves  as  a  trader 
facilitating  an  LTA  rather  than  as  an  organiser  in  order  to  avoid  the  stricter  liability  rules 
applicable to packages, leaving consumers with a lower level of protection.  

3.2.3.  Delimitation between package and LTA 

The distinction between certain packages and certain LTAs can be difficult18. A travel agent 
who books a flight and a hotel for its customer and issues one invoice for both services sells a 
package. When the same services were not selected jointly, the travel agent that books them 
one after the other and does not charge a total price facilitates an LTA.  

With  regard  to  ‘click-through  bookings’19  it  may  be  very  difficult  for  consumers  and 
enforcement authorities to prove whether a package, an LTA or none of them was concluded, 
as explained in the 2019 ‘click-through bookings’ report. A travel service provider who, after 
completion of a booking, transfers the traveller’s name, payment details and e-mail address to 
another trader with whom a second service is booked within 24 hours of the confirmation of 
the first booking, is the organiser of a package and hence liable for the performance of both 
services. If one of those data elements is not transferred, the first trader facilitates a LTA and 
is only liable for the performance of its own service, provided the second booking happens 
within  24  hours.  If  it  happens  later,  the  PTD  is  not  applicable  at  all.  It  is  reported  that,  in 
practice,  it  is  difficult  to  demonstrate  what  data  was  transferred  between  traders  or  the 
moment of the booking of the second travel service. 

3.2.4.  Information requirements  

According  to  Articles  5  and  19  PTD,  organisers,  retailers  and  traders  facilitating  an  LTA 
must provide travellers with specific information before the conclusion of the contract. The 
pre-contractual information requirements on the specific package in question, overall, do not 
seem  to  pose  major  problems20.  In  addition,  the  PTD  provides  three  different  standard 
information  forms  for  package  travel  contracts21  and  five  different  forms  for  LTAs22  that 
must be provided to the travellers.  

17   See Section 3.2.1. of the Staff Working Document SWD(2019) 270 final, see above footnote 2. 
18   See flowchart “Package travel or not?”, available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/flowchart-package-travel-

or-not_en    

19   A ‘click-through booking’ refers to a situation where the traveller books different travel services from 

different websites (different points of sale), but the bookings are related through links provided from website 
to website. 

20   As regards the information requirement whether the trip or holiday is generally suitable for persons with 
reduced mobility (Article 5(1)(a)(viii) PTD), it was raised that such information is not always easy to 
provide as it may depend on different factors known to the organiser only after the traveller’s selection. Such 
information should therefore rather be provided upon the traveller’s request.     

21   Annex I, Part A, B and C. 

6 

 
 
                                                           
On 26 November 2019, the Commission services organised a workshop on the application of 
the  PTD  in  the  airlines  sector23,  also  to  follow  up  on  the  Commission’s  ‘click-through 
bookings’ report. Representatives of airlines considered that the standard information forms 
are too complex, technical and difficult to read especially on mobile devices. In particular, as 
regards the standard forms for LTAs, it was argued that the information could be considered 
confusing  and  deterrent,  as  travellers  are  primarily  informed  that  they  do  not  benefit  from 
rights applying to packages. 

However,  it  was  precisely  the  aim  of  this  information  requirement  to  draw  the  attention  of 
consumers to the different level of protection offered by packages as opposed to  LTAs and 
thus  give them an informed choice between the two models. Consumer organisations argue 
that transparency should be further enhanced by informing travellers who book a stand-alone 
travel service about the level of protection linked to it, which, in the case of transport services 
is ensured by the EU passenger rights Regulations24.  

Representatives  of  travel  businesses  suggest,  in  particular  in  view  of  COVID-19,  enhanced 
consumer  information  and  protection  for  all  travel  services,  including  stand-alone  services. 
They argue that this could give more freedom to operators and consumers when choosing a 
combination  of  travel  services  (a  fully  protected  package  or  an  LTA  style  combination  of 
travel services with clear liability for the proper performance of the services for each service 
provider).  

3.3. Enforcement  

Article 24 PTD requires Member States to ensure that adequate and effective means exist to 
ensure  compliance  with  the  Directive.  Enforcement  is  organised  differently  in  the  Member 
States  in  accordance  with  their  respective  legal  traditions.  As  a  large  part  of  the  PTD 
provisions  concern  the  contractual  relationship  between  organiser  and  traveller,  those 
provisions  can  be  privately  enforced  by  travellers  before  courts  or  alternative  dispute 
resolution  bodies.  The  PTD  falls  within  the  scope  of  the  new  Directive  on  representative 
actions that Member States will have to transpose by the end of 202225. With the application 
of this Directive, qualified entities will be able to bring collective actions both  to  cease the 
infringements  of  travellers’  rights  and  to  obtain  redress.  In  addition,  according  to  the 
conformity  assessment  study  (see  above  2.2),  in  the  majority  of  Member  States  at  least 
certain  requirements  of  the  PTD  are  subject  to  administrative  or  criminal  penalties.  Public 
enforcement  is  particularly  relevant  for  checking  compliance  with  insolvency  protection 
requirements and information requirements.   

22   Annex II, Part A, B, C, D and E. 
23   Ref. no. ARES(2020)270448. 
24   Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 

establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding 
and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, 
p. 1); Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on 
rail passengers’ rights and obligations (OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 14); Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 concerning the rights of passengers when 
travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, 
p. 1); Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 
concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 
(OJ L 55 28.2.2011, p. 1). 

25   See no. 53 of Annex I of Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 
November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and 
repealing Directive 2009/22/EC, OJ L 409, 4.12.2020, p. 1.  

7 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
The  PTD  falls  within  the  scope  of  Regulation  (EU)  2017/2394  on  cooperation  between 
national  authorities  responsible  for  the  enforcement  of  consumer  protection  laws  (CPC 
Regulation)26.  In  exchanges  within  the  CPC  network,  several  authorities  reported  on 
enforcement  actions  at  national  level.  Cross-border  infringements  of  the  PTD  that  have 
harmed, harm or are likely to harm the collective interests of consumers can also be publicly 
enforced through the cooperation mechanism established under the CPC Regulation.    

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and online dispute resolution (ODR) 

Directive  2013/11/EU  on  alternative  dispute  resolution  for  consumer  disputes  (ADR 
Directive)27  and  Regulation  (EU)  524/2013  on  online  dispute  resolution  for  consumer 
disputes (ODR Regulation)28 established a horizontal legislative framework that is applicable 
also  to  the PTD. The national  ADR landscapes  are diverse29.  In  several  Member States the 
ADR bodies responsible for ‘transport services’ also cover package travel disputes, while in 
other  Member  States  this  sector  is  covered  by  the  residual  ADR  bodies  for  consumer 
disputes30.  Consumers  purchasing  goods  or  services  online  can  make  use  of  the  European 
Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform, but the available data shows that the number of 
package travel related complaints on the ODR platform remains low31.       

The Commission does not have exact figures about the level of participation of organisers in 
ADR proceedings. Consumer organisations and some national ADR bodies32 however report 
that voluntary ADR participation in the package travel sector is generally very low.  

The French ADR body Médiation Tourisme et Voyage (MTV) covers essentially the whole 
travel and transport sector. In 2019, it received 8667 requests (around 21% of them concerned 
typical package tours); for 5449 amicable solutions were proposed with an acceptance rate of 
93.5%33. The main topics of disputes related to package travel concerned performance of the 
contract, contract cancellations or alterations and the quality of the service.   

The  German  authorities  informed  the  Commission  services  that  during  the  period  2016  to 
2019, 
the 
submitted 
Universalschlichtungsstelle  des  Bundes  (Federal  General  Conciliation  Body)  concerned 
services in the leisure sector, in particular package travel. From the beginning of 2020 until 

applications 

resolution 

dispute 

24% 

the 

for 

of 

to 

26   Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on 

cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws and 
repealing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004, OJ L 345, 27.12.2017, p. 1, point 25 of the annex.  

27   Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute 
resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC 
(Directive on consumer ADR), OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, p. 63. 

28    Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online 
dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 
2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ODR), OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, p. 1. 

29   See Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and 

Social Committee on the application of Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 
on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes, COM(2019) 425 final, 
25.9.2019. 

30   Information about the areas of competence of ADR bodies is available on the ODR platform: 

https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/?event=main.adr.show2 

31   During the period March to December 2020, consumers submitted 323 complaints via the Commission’s 

ODR platform against online traders in the field of package travel. 

32   E.g. the German conciliation body for passenger transport söp and general consumer conciliation body.   
33   See MTV’s 2019 annual report, www.mtv.travel/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RAPPORT-2019.pdf 

8 

 
 
                                                           
the end of August, the number of applications concerning package travel was 27% of the total 
number of disputes, in view of the travel disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic34.  

A survey conducted by the Commission services on the impact of the COVID-19 on the ADR 
bodies showed that they have in general managed to cope with their heavier workload, with 
some having introduced digital tools, e.g. videoconferencing. 

Information from European Consumer Centres (ECC) 

In  2019,  the  network  of  European  Consumer  Centres  (ECC)35  dealt  with  2399  queries  and 
261 complaints related to the PTD36. In 2020, due to COVID-19, the numbers increased by 
368% (11226 queries) and 250% (914 complaints). Furthermore, the proportion of the total 
ECC caseload that related to the PTD increased significantly from 2% in 2019 to 7% of the 
total caseload in 202037. The average case-handling time remained the same and the rate of 
successful  or  neutral38  outcome  of  ECC  intervention  with  a  trader  increased  from  61%  in 
2019  to  70%  in  202039.  In  2019,  non-conformity  of  the  performance  or  misleading  acts  or 
omissions  were  the  main  topic  of  queries  and  complaints  (39%).  In  2020,  cancellation  and 
non-performance was the topic number one (62%). In 2020, the ECCs published a brochure 
on  the  interpretation  of  the  PTD40  and  shared  FAQs  on  their  national  websites  and  social 
media  channels  to  assist  consumers  in  view  of  the  spike  of  complaints  in  the  travel  sector, 
including packages.     

4.  Insolvency protection  

According  to  Article  17  of  the  PTD,  organisers  must  provide  security  for  the  refund  of  all 
payments  made  by  travellers  insofar  as  the  relevant  travel  services  are  not  performed  as  a 
consequence  of  the  organiser’s  insolvency.  That  security  shall  also  cover  the  travellers’ 
repatriation  if  carriage  of  passengers  is  included  in  the  package.  While  Member  States 
retained discretion as to the way in which insolvency protection is to be arranged, they must 
ensure  that  the  protection  is  effective  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  laid  down  in 
Article  17  of  the  PTD.  Overall,  the  2015  PTD  has  led  to  a  significant  improvement  of  the 
national  insolvency  protection  systems  compared  to  the  one  under  the  1990  PTD.  In  21 
Member  States,  the  insolvency  protection  is  organised  by  the  sector  itself,  either  through 
private  guarantee  funds,  insurance  companies,  a  combination  of  both  or  other  forms  of 
private  arrangement,  such  as  bank  guarantees.  Two  Member  States  (Finland  and  Portugal) 
have  set  up  a  guarantee  fund  established  as  a  public  entity.  Four  Member  States  (Czechia, 
Denmark,  Malta,  Poland)  and  the  UK  have  a  mixed  system,  which  means  that  a  form  of 

34   See also the 2020 annual report of the  Universalschlichtungsstelle des Bundes, https://www.verbraucher-

schlichter.de/media/file/84.Taetigkeitsbericht2020.pdf  

35   ECC Net is a network of independently-managed offices co-funded by the European Commission. It 

provides free information and advice to consumers who purchase products and services within the EU and 
assists with out-of-court settlement of disputes arising between traders and consumers from different EU 
Member States. 

36   Queries cover all requests for information and assistance received by ECCs; complaints cover cases where 

ECCs contact the trader to find a solution.  

37   Further information about the context in which the increase in travel related queries occurred is available in 

the report 15 Years of ECC Net: https://assets.website-
files.com/5f9fdbf6d1bfacd47b425986/5fa40a62acd24ca8c8ddc07c_2020-10-30-Report-ECCNET-Web.pdf 

38   Neutral outcome is when the case is referred to an ADR body or when the consumers fail to progress their 

case (e.g. does not supply documentation requested by ECC). 

39   The comparison is between complaints that were both made and resolved in 2020 and complaints that were 

made and resolved in 2019. 

40   https://www.epc.si/media/2020/Package-travel-across-the-EU_ENG.pdf 

9 

 
 
 
                                                           
private security is complemented by a publicly administered guarantee fund (double layer) or 
that the guarantee funds are administered by private-public organisations.  

4.1.  Functioning of insolvency protection schemes – the Thomas Cook bankruptcy 

The failure in September 2019 of the UK based Thomas Cook Group plc., one of the world’s 
leading leisure travel  groups, with sales of £9.6 billion and around 19 million clients in the 
year  prior  to  its  bankruptcy,  sent  shock-waves  through  the  whole  tourism  sector.  Thomas 
Cook was active across the EU through different subsidiaries and brands in several Member 
States  and  had  more  than  21  000  employees.  The  bankruptcy  affected  around  600  000 
holidaymakers,  who  either  had  to  be  repatriated  or  reimbursed  the  money  they  had  paid  in 
advance. Travellers in almost all EU countries were affected.  

To  the  extent  that  travellers  had  bought  a  package  tour,  they  were  covered  by  the  relevant 
national insolvency protection schemes.  

The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) organised the largest peacetime repatriation of more 
than  140  000  travellers.  In  the  UK  alone,  the  competent  authority  settled  around  340  000 
claims,  at  a  value  of  almost  £350  million  covered  by  the  government-run  Air  Travel 
Organiser's Licence (ATOL) protection scheme41. 

The  bankruptcy  of  Thomas  Cook’s  German  subsidiaries  left  around  140  000  travellers 
stranded  abroad,  who  were  repatriated  with  the  help  of  the  insolvency  protection  provider 
Zurich Versicherungen42. The insolvency protection, however, was insufficient to fully cover 
the refunds of travellers not yet at their destination (estimated 287.4 million EUR), because of 
a  cap  in  the  liability  of  insurance  companies  covering  this  risk43.  The  federal  government 
committed to compensate all affected travellers for the difference between their pre-payments 
and  the  amount  of  refunds  received  from  the  insurance  company  covering  the  insolvent 
Thomas Cook companies44. According to information provided by the German authorities, at 
the beginning of February 2021, 105 306 travellers had completed their registrations for such 
claims and up to 10 000 registrations could possibly still be completed45.   

In  France,  more  than  53  000  travellers  were  affected  and  the  costs  for  the  travel  guarantee 
fund APST, that covered Thomas Cook’s French subsidiaries, are estimated between 40 and 
50 million EUR. Around 10 500 travellers were repatriated and more than 30 000 customers 
could  spend  their  holidays  with  other  tour  operators.  The  refund  of  more  than  11  500 
travellers can start only once the insolvency procedure is finalised and all eligible refund files 
are completed.  

41   https://www.caa.co.uk/News/99--of-Thomas-Cook-claims-now-settled/?catid=159  
42   https://www.newsroom.zurich.de/pressreleases/zurich-startet-mit-erstattungen-an-kunden-der-insolventen-

thomas-cook-deutschland-gmbh-bundesregierung-stellt-ausgleich-fuer-thomas-cook-kunden-in-punkt-punkt-
punkt-2952671 

43   See https://www.newsroom.zurich.de/pressreleases/thomas-cook-insolvenz-zurich-startet-zweiten-

zahlungslauf-3041808 

44   See the Federal Government’s press communication 417 of 11 December 2019, 

https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/bundesregierung-laesst-thomas-cook-
kunden-nicht-im-regen-stehen-1705836. As reaction to the Thomas Cook bankruptcy, the German 
Government decided to reform the insolvency protection system for package travel, see 
https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2020/061020_Insolvenzsicherung_Reiserecht.html 
45   See also information about the procedure to register claims on the website of the German Ministry of Justice 

and for Consumer protection 
https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2020/111220_Thomas_Cook.html (accessed on 15 
December 2020).  

10 

 
 
                                                           
Thomas Cook continued to have insolvency protection in each of the Member States where 
its  different  subsidiaries  were  established  and  did  not  rely  on  the  mutual  recognition 
mechanism  under  the  PTD.  Therefore,  the  costs  for  repatriation  and  reimbursement  of  the 
travellers  concerned  across  the  EU  were  shared  among  the  different  insolvency  protection 
providers  in  the  Member  States,  and  did  not  rest  on  one  single  travel  guarantee  fund  or 
insurance company. 

4.2. Assessment 

4.2.1.  Repatriation of travellers and refund of payments 

Overall, and having regard to the magnitude of the Thomas Cook bankruptcy, the insolvency 
protection  systems  appear  to  have  functioned  well,  even  though  they  were  put  under  great 
strain.  The  affected  travellers,  who  had  already  been  at  their  travel  destination,  were 
repatriated  or  could  terminate  their  holidays  as  planned.  According  to  the  information 
available to the Commission, travellers who had not yet started their package have received 
or should  receive a refund of their pre-payments. However, in some Member States travellers 
had to wait a long time to receive a refund, or have not yet received a full refund more than 
one year after the Thomas Cook bankruptcy, even though Article 17(5) of the PTD requires 
that refunds shall be provided without undue delay after the traveller’s request. 

4.2.2.  Insurability of risks 

Some business stakeholders represented in the PTD stakeholder expert group and authorities 
have expressed concerns that it may be increasingly difficult to find appropriate insolvency 
protection providers that are willing and capable to cover the risks related to the bankruptcy 
of a big organiser, especially during peak season. Relatively few travel guarantee funds and 
insurance companies provide insolvency protection. It has been reported that banks were no 
longer  providing  security  for  organisers  and  that  also  some  of  the  already  relatively  few 
insurance  companies  offering  insolvency  protection  are  pulling  out  of  the  market  (e.g.  in 
Austria46  and  Belgium47).  It  is  therefore  important  to  find  a  solid  system  that  effectively 
protects  travellers against the risk of insolvency. Ideas brought  forward to  address  different 
challenges include multiple security providers for one organiser or the setting up of a pan-EU 
guarantee fund as a kind of re-insurance for the first line guarantors.  

4.2.3.  Divergences between national insolvency protection systems  

The PTD requires  that  the insolvency protection must be ‘effective’ but  has left  the way in 
which this protection is to be arranged to the Member States (see recital 39 of the PTD). The 
challenges  in  some  Member  States  to  cover  repatriation  and  refunds  has  led  consumer 
organisations to call for further harmonisation of the national insolvency protection systems, 
including minimum criteria how the insolvency protection system should be designed and to 
ensure that guarantee funds are adequately funded. However, the PTD already provides more 
details on the required insolvency protection than the 1990 PTD and it was controversial in 
the  legislative  negotiations  on  the  PTD  how  prescriptive  the  Directive  should  be  in  this 
respect. Representatives of the insurance industry have pointed out that repatriations can be 
better  organised  by  the  travel  industry  itself  (e.g.  through  a  guarantee  fund)  while  the  core 
business of financial institutions is to deal with payments.  

46   See recital 7 of the Commission Decision of 4.2.2021 in State aid case SA.60521, 

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_60521 

47   See minutes of the 4th meeting of the PTD stakeholder expert group (24.11.2020).   

11 

 
 
                                                           
4.2.4.  Preference for continuation of the package holiday  

In  particular  representatives  of  travel  guarantee  funds  in  the  PTD  stakeholder  expert  group 
stressed  that  in  case  of  an  organiser’s  insolvency  the  continuation  of  the  booked  package, 
instead  of  repatriation  or  refund,  would  be  the  best  solution  for  travellers  and  providers  of 
travel  services48.  In  recital  39  of  the  PTD,  it  is  stated  that  it  should  be  possible  to  offer 
travellers the continuation of the package.  

4.2.5.  Limitation of pre-payments 

Pre-payment is  the usual  payment  mode for package travel.  In Germany,  based on national 
case law on unfair contract terms, pre-payments for package travel are in principle limited to 
20% down payment at the time of booking, unless the organiser duly justifies a higher pre-
payment  due  to  expenditures  arising  at  the  time  of  contract  conclusion;  the  rest  is  due  not 
more than 30 days before begin of the trip49. Nonetheless, Thomas Cook’s bankruptcy led to 
refund  claims  of  estimated  287.4  million  EUR  in  Germany,  eventually  prompting  the 
government  to  pay  for  outstanding  refunds  (see  above  under  section  4.1.).  Also  in  Austria, 
restrictions  on  pre-payments  for  package  travel  exist,  which,  however,  do  not  apply  when 
unlimited insolvency protection is available50.  

In order to limit the exposure of travellers to the insolvency risk, but also to reduce the risks 
of  security  providers,  and  hence  the  costs  for  it,  consumer  and  traveller  organisations  have 
put forward the idea to limit the amount of pre-payments and require travellers to pay only 
when  they  receive  the  service.  They  argue  that  by  limiting  pre-payments,  the  risk  to  be 
covered  by  insolvency  protection  systems  could  possibly  be  limited  mainly  to  repatriation, 
and travellers would be better protected in case of cancellations51.  

As  pre-paid  services,  such  as  carriage  of  passengers,  are  often  part  of  a  package,  the 
feasibility,  scope  and  constraints  of  a  potential  limitation  of  pre-payments  in  the  package 
travel sector would have to be assessed having regard to the broader tourism eco-system. 

Representatives  of  the  transport  and  travel  sectors  consider  that  limitation  of  pre-payments 
could  worsen  their  critical  liquidity  situation.  They  also  point  out  that  pre-payment  is  the 
global  standard  for  travel  services  and  unilateral  EU  requirements  limiting  this  business 
model could have far-reaching implications and distort the level playing field vis-à-vis non-
EU competitors.  In addition,  industry  representatives stress  that  package  holiday prices can 

48   See minutes of the 3rd meeting of the PTD stakeholder expert group (3.12.2019). 
49   See judgments of the Bundesgerichtshof of 9.12.2014, X ZR 13/14, and of 25.7.2017, X ZR 71/16, 

http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-
bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&sid=4803bc48cdfac870b7acb7fba96c1c46&nr=704
92&pos=0&anz=1, Urteil des X. Zivilsenats vom 25.7.2017 - X ZR 71/16 - (bundesgerichtshof.de)   
50   See §4(4) of the Package Travel Order (Pauschalreiseverordnung): pre-payments may only be accepted 11 
months before the agreed end of the trip; pre-payments of more than 20% may only be requested 20 days 
before the start of the trip, unless unlimited insolvency protection is available. 

51   See position paper of the Verband Deutsches Reisemanagement e.V. of May 2020 at https://www.vdr-
service.de/fileadmin/der-verband/politische-arbeit/vdr-positionen/2020-05_VDR-Position_Payment-
Practice-Airline-Tickets_Pay-As-You-Check-In.pdf; Gutachten Vorkasse im Reise- und Flugbereich (Dec. 
2020) commissioned by the German consumer organisation vzbv (not yet published); minutes of the 3rd 
meeting of the PTD stakeholder expert group (3.12.2019). See also Commission Staff Working Document 
SWD(2020) 331 final, 9.12.2020, point 947. 

12 

 
 
                                                           
be kept low because travel operators purchase large allotments of hotel and transport capacity 
in advance, financed with pre-payments from consumers52.   

4.2.6.  Insolvency protection against the bankruptcy of transport operators   
In  its  resolution  in  reaction  to  the  bankruptcy  of  Thomas  Cook53,  the  European  Parliament 
acknowledged the effective repatriation and did not raise any concerns in respect of the PTD. 
In  this  context,  the  Parliament  nevertheless  repeated  its  request  to  extend  insolvency 
protection to  seat-only flights  in  the framework  of the revision of the Air Passenger Rights 
Regulation  261/2004.  The  insolvency  of  an  airline  can  affect  travellers,  tour  operators  and 
intermediaries. For example, if a package travel contract with a flight component is cancelled 
in  accordance  with  the  PTD,  the  organiser  may  have  to  refund  the  traveller  the  full  price 
irrespective of whether he still holds the money or will be able to recover it from the airline. 
The call from a number of stakeholders representing travel businesses and consumers for the 
introduction of mandatory insolvency protection to be provided by airlines has become louder 
in the context of the COVID-19 crisis. The Aviation Roundtable Report on the Recovery of 
European Aviation (November 2020) acknowledges that this crisis has shown that passengers 
feel they may find themselves unprotected in case of insolvency of airlines and suggests that 
the impact of airline insolvency protection could be further analysed54. 

In its Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy of 9 December 2020, the  Commission stated 
that the “EU must help passengers when transport operators go bankrupt or are in a major 
liquidity  crisis  as  in  the  context  of  COVID-19  pandemic.  Stranded  passengers  need  to  be 
repatriated and their tickets have to be reimbursed in case of cancellations by carriers. The 
Commission considers options and benefits of possible means that protect passengers against 
such events and will, if appropriate, make legislative proposals”55. 

5.  The COVID-19 pandemic  

On  30  January  2020,  the  World  Health  Organization  (WHO)  declared  a  public  health 
emergency  of  international  concern  over  the  global  outbreak  of  COVID‑ 19  and,  on  11 
March 2020, characterised it as a pandemic.  

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented worldwide travel restrictions causing 
almost  a  standstill  of  travel  in  Europe  and  many  other  parts  of  the  world.  This  is  having  a 
serious  impact  on  the  whole  tourism  ecosystem.  UNWTO  data  show  for  January-October 
2020 a reduction of tourism results in Europe of 72% compared to 201956. Besides the loss of 

52   According to the UK consumer organisation Which?,  package holidays are cheaper for 2021 summer 

holidays than ‘do it yourself’ bookings, see https://www.which.co.uk/news/2020/11/package-holiday-deals-
cheaper-for-summer-2021-versus-booking-diy/ (accessed on 16.12.2020) 

53   European Parliament resolution of 24 October 2019 on the negative impact of the bankruptcy of Thomas 
Cook on EU tourism (2019/2854(RSP)), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-9-2019-
0120_EN.pdf  

54   https://a4e.eu/wp-content/uploads/aviation-round-table-report-16-11-2020.pdf, page 10. 
55   Communication from the Commission COM(2020) 789 final, point 91.  
56   United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), expressed in international tourist arrivals, see 
https://www.unwto.org/international-tourism-and-covid-19. The European Travel Agents’ and Tour 
Operators' Associations (ECTAA) reports an average of minus 80% of turnover compared to 2019, see 
https://www.ectaa.org/Uploads/press-releases/PUBS-PR-20201218-2020-The-year-travel-stopped.pdf. 
Eurostat data show a 49% decline in the number of nights spent in EU tourist accommodation establishments 
for the period January-September 2020, see https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Tourism_statistics_-
_nights_spent_at_tourist_accommodation_establishments&stable=1#First_semester_of_2020:_dramatic_dro
p_in_number_of_nights_spent_in_EU_tourist_accommodation. Based on April-May 2020 data, the 

13 

 
 
                                                           
 
revenues, organisers are particularly hit by the fact that refund requests from travellers due to 
cancellations  significantly  exceed  the  level  of  new  bookings.  The  Commission’s  Joint 
Research Centre estimated in a ‘second wave’ scenario that 11.7 million jobs could be at risk 
in  the  EU  economy  as  a  result  of  a  drop  in  tourist  arrivals  in  202057.  At  the  same  time, 
according to consumer organisations, by December 2020 thousands of consumers had not yet 
received a refund in money for cancelled holidays58.  

5.1. Travel cancellations due to COVID-19  

COVID-19  triggered  the  application  of  the  PTD  provisions  concerning  “unavoidable  and 
extraordinary circumstances” which is defined in Article 3(12) PTD as  “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”59.  Significant  risks  to 
human  health,  such  as  the  outbreak  of  a  serious  disease  at  the  travel  destination  or  its 
immediate vicinity usually qualify as such unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances (see 
recital 31 PTD).  

In  accordance  with  Article  12  PTD,  the  traveller  can  terminate  the  package  travel  contract 
without penalty if there are “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” 
(Article 12(2) PTD). The organiser of a package can terminate the contract without penalty as 
well  if  he  is  prevented  from  performing  the  contract  because  of  “unavoidable  and 
extraordinary circumstances” (Article 12(3) PTD). In those cases, the traveller has the right to 
a full refund of any payments made for the package within 14 days after termination of the 
contract (Article 12(4) PTD). 

On 5 March 2020, with an update on 19 March 2020, the Commission services published on 
the  Commission’s  website  informal  guidance  on  the  application  of  the  Package  Travel 
Directive  in  connection  with  COVID-1960,  confirming  the  traveller’s  right  to  get  a  full 
refund, if, based on a case-by-case assessment, the conditions of Article 12(2) or (3) of the 
PTD  are  met.  In  that  note,  the  Commission  services  also  stated  that,  having  regard  to  the 
cash-flow situation of organisers, travellers should consider accepting that their package tour 
is postponed to a later point in time, which, having regard to the current uncertainty to make 

Commission’s Joint Research Centre estimated a 68% decline by the end of the year in case of a ‘second 
wave scenario`, Behavioural changes in tourism  in times of COVID-19, 
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC121262/report_covid_tour_emp_final.pdf.   

57   Behavioural changes in tourism in times of COVID-19, 

https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC121262/report_covid_tour_emp_final.pdf.   
58   See BEUC’s Evaluation of the Member States Implementation of the EU Commission Recommendation on 
‘vouchers’ of 14.12.2020, https://www.beuc.eu/publications/travel-voucher-chaos-continues-several-eu-
countries-and-travel-industry-still-flouting/html 

59   According to the minutes of the 2nd transposition workshop of 13 June 2016 (p. 19) “unavoidable and 
extraordinary circumstances” within the meaning of the PTD imply that the relevant event was not 
predictable or foreseeable at the time of the booking, available at 
https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=35324. Those minutes do not reflect the official 
position of the Commission regarding the interpretation of the PTD. Article 4(6)(ii) of Council Directive 
90/314/EEC used the term “force majeure, i.e. unusual and unforeseeable circumstances beyond the control 
of the party by whom it is pleaded, the consequences of which could not have been avoided even if all due 
care had been exercised”. 

60   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/coronavirus_info_ptd_19.3.2020.pdf, published on the 

Commission’s COVID-19 response website https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/health/coronavirus-
response/travel-and-transportation_en 

14 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
travel plans, could be done by credit note (“voucher”). Several Member States requested the 
Commission to suspend the 14 days refund right and/or replace it with a temporary voucher 
solution61. 
In  a  letter  of  27  March  2020  addressed  to  all  Member  States62,  Commissioner  Reynders 
recalled  that  the  traveller’s  reimbursement  right  had  to  be  applied  to  COVID-19  related 
cancellations. To ease businesses’ liquidity problems, he suggested that tour operators could 
offer vouchers under the condition that the travellers (1) would have the choice to accept the 
voucher and (2) should have the possibility to ask for a full refund if, eventually, they did not 
make  use  of  it.  In  addition,  Commissioner  Reynders  also  stressed  that  measures  to  ensure 
robust  insolvency  protection  were  needed  to  enhance  travellers’  confidence  to  make  such 
choice. 

5.1.1. Commission Recommendation on vouchers 

On  13  May  2020,  the  Commission  adopted  Recommendation  (EU)  2020/648  on  vouchers 
offered to passengers and travellers as an alternative to reimbursement for cancelled package 
travel  and  transport  services  in  the  context  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic63.  In  this 
Recommendation,  the  Commission  again  recalled  the  right  to  reimbursement  under  the 
applicable EU legislation, namely the PTD and EU passenger rights Regulations. At the same 
time, the Recommendation recognises the unsustainable cash-flow and revenue situation for 
the transport and travel sectors, due to the numerous cancellations entailed by the coronavirus 
pandemic. The Commission therefore recommended ways in which vouchers could be made 
more  attractive,  as  an  alternative  to  reimbursement  in  money,  in  order  to  increase  their 
acceptance by passengers and travellers. The Recommendation also pointed out what kind of 
Union schemes are available to support undertakings in the travel and transport sectors. 
By  letter  of  Commissioner  Reynders  and  Commissioner  Vălean  of  14  May  202064,  the 
Commission  drew  the  attention  of  all  Member  States  to  this  Recommendation.  The 
Commission requested, amongst other things, that PTD and EU passenger rights Regulations 
are  correctly  applied  and  that  practices  in  violation  of  such  rules  are  detected  in  a  timely 
manner and effectively sanctioned65.  

With  its  Recommendation  the  Commission  gave  a  clear  signal  to  Member  States  and 
stakeholders  that  it  would  not  follow  calls  for  lowering  consumer  protection66.  Several 

61   See in this respect e.g. the decision of the German Government of 2 April 2020 to request the Commission to 
submit at EU level proposals on package travel and passenger rights that should temporarily replace cash 
refunds by vouchers in case of COVID-19 related cancellations, https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-
de/aktuelles/im-sogenannten-corona-kabinett-der-bundesregierung-wurde-heute-folgender-beschluss-fuer-
eine-gutscheinloesung-bei-pauschalreisen-flugtickets-und-freizeitveranstaltungen-gefasst--1738744 

62   Ref. no ARES(2020)1801052. 
63    OJ L 151, 14.5.2020, p. 10–16. 
64   Ref. no. ARES(2020)2559372. 
65   See also FAQ document on Commission’s coronavirus response website: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/passenger-rights-faqs_3107_en.pdf 

66   In its resolution of 19 June 2020 on transport and tourism in 2020 and beyond the European Parliament 

called on the Commission to propose common EU rules on the terms and conditions of the vouchers issued 
related to COVID-19 while maintaining a high level of consumer protection; it also suggested exploring the 
possibility of establishing a European Travel Guarantee scheme for companies to secure financial liquidity in 
order to guarantee refunds to travellers as well as repatriation costs, together with fair compensation for any 
damages incurred in the event of bankruptcy, see https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-
2020-0169_EN.html, points 14 and 15. 

15 

 
 
                                                           
Member  States67,  following  the  Commission  Recommendation,  adopted  legislation  on 
voluntary vouchers related to package travel and/or adopted State aid measures to support the 
travel sector directly under the Temporary Framework for State aid measures to support the 
economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak68 or under the Treaty69. Consumer organisations, 
however, have complained that EU countries, airlines and tour operators are poorly following 
the Commission Recommendation70.  

5.1.2.  Temporary national rules derogating from the PTD  

According  to  the  information  of  the  Commission,  15  Member  States  adopted  specific  rules 
temporarily  allowing  organisers  of  packages  to  impose  vouchers,  instead  of  reimbursing 
payments  in  money,  for  cancelled  trips,  or  to  postpone  reimbursement  beyond  the  14-day 
period, which is contrary to Article 12(2), 12(3)(b) and 12(4) read in conjunction with Article 
4 of the PTD.  

As a consequence, in line with the clear position expressed in its Recommendation 2020/648, 
the  Commission  opened  infringement  proceedings  against  11  Member  States71.  The 
Commission did not open infringement proceedings against the four Member States in which 
the  temporary  derogations  from  the  PTD  had  expired  or  had  been  amended  when  the 
Commission decided on the opening of infringement proceedings. At the time of this report, 
infringement procedures against four Member States are still open.  

In several Member States, the non-compliant national measures, albeit not in force any more, 
continued  to  produce  effects,  for  example  because  travellers  who  received  compulsory 
vouchers based on the expired or repealed legislation had to wait at least until the end of the 
validity of such vouchers, before they could claim the refund of the pre-payments made for 
their cancelled package tour. The Commission urged those Member States to take measures 
to remedy the situation created by the past legislation contrary to the PTD and make sure that 
consumers, who prefer reimbursement in money to a voucher, effectively receive a refund in 
accordance with the PTD72.  

5.1.3. National State aid measures  

Besides  general  State  aid  schemes  available  also  to  operators  in  the  tourism  sector,  several 
Member States adopted specific State aid measures to support package travel organisers and, 
in particular, set up guarantee schemes for vouchers to ensure that, in the event of insolvency 

67   E.g. Cyprus, Germany, Hungary, Latvia provided a regulatory framework for voluntary vouchers; Greece 
and Italy did the same after the opening of infringement procedures. Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, 
Poland adopted State aid measures in support of insolvency protection systems.    

68   See Communication from the Commission of 19 March 2020 - Temporary Framework for State aid 
measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak, OJ C 91I, 20.3.2020, p. 1. The 
Temporary Framework was amended on 3 April, 8 May, 29 June, 13 October 2020 and 28 January 2021, see 
informal consolidated version on the Commission’s website under 
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/what_is_new/covid_19.html 

69   Under Article 107(3)(b) of the TFEU, whilst taking into account, by analogy, certain requirements of the 

Temporary Framework. 

70   See BEUC’s report “Covid-19 and EU Travellers’ Right - Evaluation of the Member States Implementation 

of the EU Commission Recommendation on ‘vouchers’” of 14.12.2020, 
https://www.beuc.eu/publications/travel-voucher-chaos-continues-several-eu-countries-and-travel-industry-
still-flouting/html  

71   See Commission’s press communications of 2 July and 30 October 2020 (under point 5 – Justice): 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/INF_20_1212 and  
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_20_1687 

72   Letter of 30.10.2020 addressed to ten Member States, ref. no ARES(2020)6156146. 

16 

 
 
                                                           
of  the  organiser,  travellers  are  reimbursed,  as  recommended  by  the  Commission  in  its 
Recommendation  2020/648.  The  Commission  approved  those  measures  in  accordance  with 
the Temporary Framework for State aid measures73 or under the Treaty74.   

Denmark  adopted  a  €200  million  loan  in  support  of  the  Travel  Guarantee  Fund  for  travel 
cancellations  due  to  coronavirus  outbreak75.  Germany  adopted  a  €840  million  guarantee 
scheme  to  secure  voluntary  vouchers  accepted  by  travellers  instead  of  cash  refunds76.  With 
this scheme, Germany aimed at making vouchers an attractive alternative to reimbursement 
in money. Poland adopted measures to support tour operators and other undertakings active in 
tourism and culture77. Under this scheme, the  Polish State reimburses travellers affected by 
COVID-19 related cancellations on behalf of tour operators, which will have to repay those 
loans. Italy adopted measures to provide direct  grants to tour operators and travel  agents in 
order to compensate for losses78. The Netherlands adopted a €165 million loan to support the 
five  Dutch  guarantee  funds  that  provide  guarantee  schemes  for  package  travel  organisers79. 
The purpose of this State aid is to provide liquidity to the funds to ensure sufficient cover for 
all payments to travellers in case of travel operators’ insolvency, including the reimbursement 
of  ‘Corona  vouchers’.  Bulgaria  adopted  an  aid  scheme  of  around  €26  million  for  tour 
operators  and  travel  agents  for  compensation  of  losses  related  to  refunds  to  be  made  to 
travellers whose packages have been cancelled because of COVID-1980. Cyprus adopted aid 
of an estimated amount of €86.6 million in the form of guarantees for credit notes issued to 
consumers and package travel organisers in order to secure those voluntary vouchers against 
a possible insolvency of the issuer81. Sweden adopted aid in form of loans to travel agencies 
and tour operators to support them fulfilling their legal reimbursement obligations82. Austria 
adopted  aid  in  the  form  of  State  guarantees  to  cover,  for  a  limited  amount  of  time,  the 
insolvency risk of package travel organisers and facilitators of linked travel services having 
regard to the withdrawal of banks and insurance providers from package travel insurance and 
the difficulties for package travel organisers and  facilitators of linked travel services to find 
affordable guarantees on the market83. 

5.2.  Challenges 

5.2.1.  Respect of travellers’ right to reimbursement  

Across  the  EU,  several  thousands  of  travellers  whose  trips  had  to  be  cancelled  because  of 
COVID-19 reportedly did not receive reimbursements within 14 days as provided for under 
Article 12(4) PTD; they were either refused a refund, imposed a voucher against their wish, 
could not contact the organiser, received a refund with significant delay or only partially, or 
were otherwise hindered to claim their right84. Also the increase in the number of queries and 

73   See footnote 68. 
74   See footnote 69. 
75   https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_56856   
76   https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_57741   
77   https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_58102  
78   https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_59755 
79   https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_57985  
80   https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_59990 
81   https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_59668  
82   https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_59639 
83   https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_60521 
84   See BEUC’s report referred to in footnote 70 and its survey among their members regarding complaints in 

the package travel sector (not published).    

17 

 
 
                                                           
complaints received by ADR bodies, ECCs and consumer organisations gave rise to concerns 
regarding the respect for travellers’ rights under the PTD.   

5.2.2.  Difficulties for businesses     

As  described  in  section  5.1.,  COVID-19  triggered  the  application  of  the  notion  of 
“unavoidable and extraordinary  circumstances” as  defined in  Article 3(12)  PTD. Recital  31 
mentions,  as  examples,  “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”. Such events are usually, but not necessarily, limited to a 
specific destination or a particular part of the world. 

Organisers are often able to address such events by changing the destination, postponing the 
date  of  the  trip  or  refunding  the  traveller  cross-financed  through  income  from  bookings  to 
other  destinations,  if  those  circumstances  are  isolated  to  a  specific  destination.  In  case  of  a 
pandemic that leads globally to a quasi-standstill of travel over a longer period, as in the case 
of COVID-19, refund obligations are significantly higher than income from new bookings. In 
addition,  organisers  often  have  fixed  costs  stretching  the  companies’  financial  situation. 
Eventually  this  can  harm  the  travellers’  interests  if  an  organiser  goes  bankrupt  and  the 
travellers has to make claims to the insolvency assets.         

The Commission Recommendation on vouchers (see above 5.1.1.) aimed to address also the 
liquidity  problems  of  organisers  caused  by  COVID-19  related  to  massive  cancellations. 
Those  liquidity  problems  are  exacerbated  by  the  fact  that  organisers  have  to  reimburse  the 
full price of the package to the traveller while they do not always receive reimbursement of 
prepaid  services  that  form  part  of  the  package  from  service  providers  on  time.  If  service 
providers go bankrupt in the meanwhile, organisers may not receive refunds at all. This can 
result in an unfair sharing of the burden among operators in the travel eco-system85.  

Some  package  organisers  and  intermediaries  reported  that,  during  the  COVID-19  crisis, 
airlines stopped the automatic refund mechanism towards organisers and other travel agents 
through  the  Global  Distribution  Systems  (“Computerised  Reservations  Systems”),  while 
organisers had to refund the money to travellers.  

The  uneven  character  of  the  business-to-business  relation  is  further  aggravated  by  the 
different  legal  regimes  of organisers and transport  services providers. Contrary to  the PTD, 
passengers  who  cancel  a  flight  or  other  transport  service  themselves  do  not  have  a  right  to 
reimbursement  under  the  EU  passenger  rights  Regulations,  even  in  case  of  extraordinary 
circumstances. In such a case, the legal consequences and in particular the passenger’s right 
to  reimbursement  are  determined  by  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  contract  concluded 
between  the  passenger  and  the  transport  operator  and  the  applicable  law  of  the  Member 
States. For example, if a traveller who booked a package with a flight component, cancelled 
the package travel  contract  in  accordance with  the PTD, the organiser has  to  reimburse the 
traveller, but has no right under EU law to claim a refund from the airline if the flight was 
operated.  The  organiser  would  rather  need  to  assert  a  possible  right  to  refund  under  the 
relevant law of the Member State concerned. 

Some package travel organisers have suggested amending Article 22 of the PTD and adding a 
refund obligation of suppliers of travel services that are not provided due to the termination 

85   Recital 13 of the Commission Recommendation (EU) 2020/648.  

18 

 
 
                                                           
of  the  package  travel  contract,  if  the  organiser  has  to  reimburse  the  traveller.  The  airline 
sector, on the other hand, has raised strong concerns with regard to regulating in the PTD the 
often complex business-to-business relations between organisers and travel service suppliers.    

5.2.3.  Official travel warning or advice 

It is widely recognised that an official travel warning of national authorities is an important 
indicator that a package travel contract can be cancelled due to unavoidable and extraordinary 
circumstances  affecting  the  performance  of  the  trip.  However,  the  PTD  itself  is  silent  in 
respect  of  the  legal  value  of  travel  warning  or  advice  issued  by  governments,  as,  at  the 
moment  of  its  adoption,  some  Member  States  were  strongly  opposed  to  any  reference  to 
official travel advice in the Directive86.  

The  issuing  of  travel  advice  is  the  competence  of  the  Member  States,  which  exchange 
information on the advice they issue through the Consular OnLine (CoOL) network. During 
the  COVID-19  pandemic,  Member  States  issued  travel  advice  not  only  in  respect  of  third 
countries,  but  also  regarding  other  Member  States,  typically  discouraging  all  non-essential 
travel.  National  travel  warnings  or  advice  were  made,  initially,  in  a  non-coordinated  way. 
This  caused  uncertainties  for  travel  business  and  consumers,  especially  in  cross-border 
situations, about their rights and obligations.  

On 13 October 2020, the Council adopted a Recommendation87 on a coordinated approach to 
the  restriction  of  free  movement  in  response  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  within  the  EU. 
Although not addressing travel advice directly, Member States agreed on a common map on 
the COVID-19 risk level in the EU, published by the European Centre for Disease Prevention 
and  Control.  In  addition,  Member  States  committed  to  clear  and  timely  information  to  the 
public  provided,  among  others,  via  the  Re-open  EU  platform88.  In  view  of  the  evolving 
epidemiological situation, the Council amended the Recommendation on 1 February 202189. 

5.2.4.  Vouchers 

Contrary  to  the  passenger  rights  Regulations,  the  PTD  does  not  expressly  provide  for  the 
possibility to make refunds in form of a voucher. In its Recommendation (EU) 2020/648, the 
Commission  recognised  that  organisers  may  propose  vouchers  as  an  alternative  to 
reimbursement  in  money,  subject  to  the  traveller’s  voluntary  acceptance,  in  the  event  of 
cancellations (see above section 5.1.1.).  

Germany90,  Hungary91,  Latvia92  and  Cyprus93  have  adopted  national  rules  setting  a  legal 
framework for vouchers proposed for voluntary acceptance by travellers in the package travel 

86   The Commission proposal for the PTD, COM(2013) 512 final of 9.7.2013, stated in its recital 26: 

“Unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances should in particular be deemed to exist where reliable and 
publicly available reports, such as recommendations issued by Member State authorities, advise against 
travelling to the place of destination.” This statement was deleted during the legislative negotiations. 
87   Council Recommendation (EU) 2020/1475 of 13 October 2020 on a coordinated approach to the restriction 

of free movement in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, OJ L 337, 14.10.2020, p. 3. 

88   https://reopen.europa.eu/en 
89   Council Recommendation (EU) 2021/119 of 1 February 2021 amending Recommendation (EU) 2020/1475 
on a coordinated approach to the restriction of free movement in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, OJ L 
36I, 2.2.2021, p. 1. 

90   Act of 10 July 2020 to mitigate the consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak in package travel contract law, 

BGBl 2020 Teil I Nr. 35 of 16.7.2020, p. 1643.  

91   Government Decree 242/2020 of 27 May on the special rules applicable to contracts for travel services 

during an emergency. 

19 

 
 
                                                           
sector,  along  the  lines  of  the  Commission  Recommendation,  in  particular  regarding 
protection  against  the  insolvency  of  the  issuer.  Italy  and  Greece  have  followed  parts  of  the 
Recommendation when amending their laws after the opening of infringement proceedings. 
Spain amended its legislation to prevent the opening of the infringement proceedings. Ireland 
introduced  State-backed  refund  credit  notes  that  may  be  offered  to  customers  of  tour 
operators  and  travel  agents  operating  in  Ireland  instead  of  a  cash  refund,  if  the  customer 
agrees94.   

The Commission stated clearly that the travellers’ right to reimbursement as provided by the 
PTD had to be respected and considered that vouchers are an acceptable solution only if their 
acceptance is optional for the traveller. 

5.2.5.  Insolvency protection  

The question arose whether pending claims for reimbursements from travellers were covered 
by  the  insolvency  protection  systems  provided  in  accordance  with  the  PTD.  Article  17(1) 
PTD  requires  organisers  to  provide  security  for  the  refund  of  all  payments  made  by  the 
traveller  “insofar  as  the  relevant  services  are  not  performed  as  a  consequence  of  the 
organiser’s insolvency”. The Commission considered in its Recommendation 2020/648 that, 
if  organisers  become  insolvent,  there  is  a  risk  that  many  travellers  would  not  receive  any 
refund, as their claims against organisers are not protected95.   

Nonetheless,  representatives  of  travel  guarantee  funds  have  alerted  that  some  insolvency 
protection providers may come under significant additional pressure in the coming months, if 
they  had  to  step  in  to  reimburse  vouchers  issued  by  organisers  going  bankrupt  in  high 
numbers.  This  is  especially  the  case  in  Member  States  that  obliged  existing  insolvency 
protection  providers  to  cover  vouchers  without  supporting  measures96.  The  question  may 
arise whether refunds may be limited in light of recital 40 PTD according to which ‘highly 
remote risks’ do not need to be taken into account for an effective insolvency protection97. 

In  the  context  of  the  preparation  of  this  report,  consumer  organisations  and  some  Member 
States suggested that the PTD should be amended to ensure that consumers’ refund claims are 
protected also in situations where the package travel contract had been terminated on grounds 

92   Law on the Management of the Spread of COVID-19 Infection, chapter V, section 46, Latvijas Vēstnesis, 

110A, 09.06.2020, OP number: 2020/110A.1. 

93   The Emergency Measures in the Tourism Sector Law of 2020, Law 59(I)/2020 of 22 May 2020. 
94   https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/1ae3d-refund-credit-note/  
95   See Recital 14 of Recommendation 2020/648. See also page 6 of the minutes of the 3rd transposition 

workshop of the PTD (25 Oct. 2016) which state: “The wording of Article 17(1) suggests that, if the contract 
was terminated before the insolvency occurs, the performance was no longer due at the time when the 
insolvency occurred, meaning that the insolvency did not cause the lack of performance of the travel 
services. Under Article 17 (1), insolvency protection seems to cover only loss of money due to lack of 
performance, but not claims for refunds which existed already at the time of insolvency.” The minutes, 
which are available at https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=35324, do not reflect the 
official position of the Commission with regard to the interpretation of the PTD. 

96   According to information available to the Commission, the value of ‘mandatory’ Corona vouchers issued in 
France is around 850 million EUR and in Belgium around 300 million EUR. The main Dutch guarantee fund 
covers vouchers with a value of around 400 million EUR.   

97   Recital 40 of the PTD states: “However, effective insolvency protection should not have to take into account 
highly remote risks, for instance the simultaneous insolvency of several of the largest organisers, where to 
do so would disproportionately affect the cost of the protection, thus hampering its effectiveness. In such 
cases the guarantee for refunds may be limited”. 

20 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
not  related  to  the  organiser’s  insolvency,  such  as  due  to  unavoidable  and  extraordinary 
circumstances.    

5.2.6.  Insurance 

Risks  related  to  pandemics  are  often  excluded  from  insurance  policies,  in  particular  travel 
cancellation insurance98. This limits the possibility of travellers to insure themselves against 
possible losses due to cancellation of a trip caused by a pandemic.  

Some  travel  business  stakeholders  have  suggested  that  organisers  should  be  allowed  to 
include appropriate personal travel insurance in a package with an opt-in/out option. Within 
the  PTD  stakeholder  group,  consumer  organisations  however  stressed  that  any  insurance 
taken out by the travellers themselves should in no way limit existing travellers’ refund rights 
and the protection under the mandatory insolvency protection.   

6.  Next steps  

The issues described in this report, in particular in sections 3.2, 4 and 5, and their practical 
consequences  require further analysis.  In particular, the full impact  of the COVID-19 crisis 
on the sector and the level of consumer protection should be further evaluated.       

As announced in its New Consumer Agenda, building on the findings of the present report, 
the  Commission  will  carry  out  by  2022  a  “deeper  analysis  into  whether  the  current 
regulatory framework for package travel, including as regards insolvency protection, is still 
fully up to the task of ensuring robust and comprehensive consumer protection at all times, 
taking into account also developments in the field of passenger rights”99. The upcoming in-
depth analysis planned for 2022 will not aim to lower consumer protection. On the contrary, 
the Commission will assess how the high level of consumer protection provided by the PTD 
can be ensured, how the rights of consumers can be effectively enforced at all times and how 
a  fairer  sharing  of  the  burden  among  economic  operators  along  the  value  chain  could 
contribute to this objective.  

This  action  under  the  Consumer  Agenda  will  take  into  account  the  relevant  actions 
announced  in  the  Sustainable  and  Smart  Mobility  Strategy.  These  actions  comprise  (1)  the 
review  of  the  passenger  rights  regulatory  framework,  including  to  ensure  its  resilience  to 
extensive travel  disruptions and options  for multimodal  tickets100 and (2) the assessment of 
options  and,  if  appropriate,  the  proposal  for  an  adequate  financial  protection  scheme  to 
protect  passengers  against  the  risk  of  a  liquidity  crisis  or  an  insolvency  regarding  the 
reimbursement of tickets and if needed their repatriation101 by 2022.   

To  this  end,  the  Commission  will  assess  whether  the  differences  between  the  PTD  and  the 
passenger  rights  Regulations  as  regards  insolvency  protection  and  cancellation  rights  are 
justified or if the rules should be more aligned102 and whether specific rules for situations like 
COVID-19 should be proposed103, with the objective to better protect consumers. 

98   See e.g. the analysis of the Belgian consumer organisation Test Achats published on 22.10.2020, 

https://www.test-achats.be/argent/assurances-assistance-voyage/dossier/coronavirus.  

99   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, New Consumer Agenda 

- Strengthening consumer resilience for sustainable recovery, COM(2020) 696 final, 13.11.2020. 

100  Annex to COM(2020) 789 final, action 63. 
101  Annex to COM(2020) 789 final, action 64. 
102  149 respondents to the public consultation for the New Consumer Agenda replied to question 3 that EU rules 
on passengers’ and travellers’ rights in the passenger rights regulations and the PTD should be more aligned 

21 

 
 
                                                           
 
(37,91%); 43 replied that differences in the rules are appropriate (10,94%) and 201 replied with “don’t 
know” (51,15%), see summary report available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
say/initiatives/12464-A-New-Consumer-Agenda/public-consultation.  

103  159 respondents to the public consultation for the New Consumer Agenda replied to question 2 whether 

specific rules (e.g. longer reimbursement deadlines or vouchers) should apply in a situation where worldwide 
travel restrictions have caused almost a standstill of travel with “yes” (40,46%); 56 respondents replied “no” 
(14,25%) and 178 replied “don’t know” (45,29%), see summary report available at 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12464-A-New-Consumer-
Agenda/public-consultation. 

22