COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2015/2302 to make the protection of travellers more effective and to simplify and clarify certain aspects of the Directive
Date: 2023-11-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of passengers, consumer protection, contractual liability, financial solvency, package travel, payment, provision of services, termination of a contract, travel agency, traveller

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 29.11.2023  SWD(2023) 907 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT    Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2015/2302 to make the protection of travellers more effective and to simplify and clarify certain aspects of the Directive {COM(2023) 905 final} - {SEC(2023) 540 final} - {SWD(2023) 905 final} - {SWD(2023) 906 final} - {SWD(2023) 908 final}  
 
 
Introduction 

The  travel  market  has  undergone  major  changes  due  to  the  increasing  use  of  digital  tools. 
Other  major  events,  in  recent  years,  were  the  bankruptcy  of  Thomas  Cook  in  2019  and  the 
COVID-19 pandemic. In response to these developments and to reports of certain challenges 
in  applying  the  2015  Package  Travel  Directive  (Directive  (EU)  2015/2302,  hereafter  the 
‘PTD’),  the  Commission  decided  to  review  the  Directive.  This  impact  assessment  report 
builds  on  the  findings  of  an  evaluation,  a  related  study  prepared  for  the  European 
Commission, and two reports on the application of the PTD from 2019 and 2021. 

Problem definition and need for EU action 

The evaluation found three main problems that hamper the effectiveness of the PTD. 

1.  One problem related to refunds of payments for cancelled travel packages, in particular in 

a major crisis. 

There  are  four  drivers  of  this  problem.  The  first  driver  is  the  practice  of  prepayments.  The 
second is organisers’ lack of liquidity when having to make many refunds at the same time. 
This  is  exacerbated  by  the  fact  that  the  PTD  does  not  include  business-to-business  rules  on 
refunds in  the event  of  a cancellation.  Lastly, there is  legal  uncertainty  regarding  the use of 
vouchers.  

2.  Prepayments are not sufficiently protected against insolvency of the organiser. 

Here,  the  evaluation  identifies  three  problem  drivers.  First,  there  is  legal  uncertainty  as  to 
whether vouchers and refund rights are protected against the organiser’s insolvency. Second, 
significant differences remain between national insolvency protection systems. Lastly, at least 
in  some Member States, package organisers find it difficult  to  obtain insolvency protection, 
especially in times of crisis. 

3.  Difficulties in implementing the PTD. 

Several  problem  drivers  were  identified.  Certain  provisions  of  the  PTD  are  not  sufficiently 
clear, contain gaps or are too complex. This leads to uneven levels of consumer protection and 
distortions of competition across the EU as the Directive is applied in different ways. 

Given the cross-border nature of package travel,  the problems  identified since the Directive 
was adopted can only be tackled consistently by taking action at EU level. 

Solutions 

This  impact  assessment  examined  measures  to  help  tackle  the  problems  identified  by 
amending  the  PTD.  The  measures  are  grouped  into  three  policy  options,  with  the  first  one 
focusing on flexible solutions and minimal costs (Option A), the second one containing more 
rigid measures (Option B), and the third aiming at maximal effectiveness in a crisis situation 
though implying higher costs (Option C).  

1 

 
 
Option A involves making targeted amendments to the PTD. It includes limiting prepayments 
to 25% (unless higher prepayments are justified), rules on voluntary vouchers and a business-
to-business refund right where services are cancelled. It strengthens insolvency protection by 
clarifying  that  vouchers  and  refund  claims  are  covered  and  by  specifying  parameters  for 
effective insolvency protection, including, where appropriate, the option for Member States to 
require  an  insolvency  protection  back-up  fund.  It  also  indicates  the  possibility  of  creating  a 
crisis fund guaranteeing rapid refunds to travellers in a major crisis, subject to State aid rules. 
This option clarifies the definition of ‘package’ and removes one of the types of ‘linked travel 
arrangements’.  It  clarifies  that  circumstances  in  the  country  of  residence,  departure  and  of 
destination must  be taken into account  for the right  to  cancel  a package  due to  unavoidable 
and extraordinary circumstances and that travel warnings are an important aspect to consider 
in this context. It also clarifies the roles of different traders in relation to packages, including 
for refunds. 

Option  B  comprises  more  rigid  measures  that  increase  the  costs  for  different  categories  of 
stakeholders  (both  businesses  and  travellers).  For  instance,  it  provides  for  a  strict  limit  of 
downpayments to 20% for package organisers (without possibility to increase) and mandatory 
vouchers in the event of a major crisis. 

Option C includes measures ensuring the highest level of consumer protection, at high costs. 
This  includes  limiting  prepayments  to  20%  (without  possibility  to  increase)  for  both 
organisers and service providers, the mandatory creation of a crisis fund and giving specific 
legal value to travel warnings. 

The impact assessment analyses the options in relation to three specific objectives: 
Objective 1: Better  protection of travellers’ prepayments and their right to a  swift refund in 
the event of cancellations, including in times of a major crisis, whilst maintaining the liquidity 
of package organisers; 
Objective 2: Giving travellers greater protection against organiser insolvency, including in the 
event of a major crisis, whilst ensuring a level playing field in the internal market; and 
Objective  3:  Increasing  legal  certainty  and  enforceability  by  clarifying  and/or  simplifying 
some  of  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  that  are  interpreted  or  applied  differently  or  are 
difficult to apply in practice. 

Option  C  is  the  most  effective  option  in  achieving  the  specific  objectives  (especially 
objectives  1  and  2),  followed  by  Options  A  and  B.  This  is  mainly  due  to  the  measures  in 
Option C being mandatory and giving a very high level of consumer protection. 

To  assess  the  efficiency  of  the  options,  the  impact  assessment  compares  the  monetised  and 
qualitatively  assessed  costs  and  benefits  for  all  stakeholder  groups  (travellers,  public 
authorities and businesses). Option A is the most efficient option in reaching the objectives, 
followed  by  Option  B.  Due  to  its  high  costs,  Option  C  is  less  efficient  than  the  baseline 
scenario. 

2 

 
 
Coherence with other pieces of EU legislation is also key, as the review aims to achieve legal 
clarity  and  simplification.  Option  A  achieves  the  highest  degree  of  coherence,  followed  by 
Option B and then Option C (which is less coherent than the baseline scenario). 

The  sensitivity  analysis  shows  that,  overall,  Option  A  performs  best.  Although  it  is  not  the 
most effective option, it benefits both travellers and businesses at the lowest costs and ensures 
the highest degree of coherence with other pieces of EU legislation. 

The result of this assessment is that Option A is the preferred option. 

The  Commission  consulted  several  categories  of  stakeholders  (including  travellers,  package 
organisers  and  service  providers)  on  many  occasions,  and  they  broadly  agreed  with  the 
measures included in  the preferred option. The main  area  where  their  views differ  concerns 
the need to limit prepayments, which is not favoured by many organisers. Views also diverge 
on  insolvency  protection  for  vouchers  and  refund  claims,  favoured  by  most  consumer 
organisations and public authorities but only by a minority of businesses. 

Revising the Directive would give rise to some costs for stakeholders, but it is also expected 
to reduce their burden, thanks to greater legal clarity and simplification. Some Member States 
already  implement  several  of  the  measures  included  in  the  preferred  option  with  only 
moderate  associated  costs.  Therefore,  in  these  Member  States,  businesses  would  face  no 
additional costs. The higher degree of legal  clarity  and the simplified regulatory framework 
are  expected  to  increase  the  level  of  compliance,  making  enforcement  more  efficient. 
Providing these clarifications may also reduce the number of disputes before courts. 

To assess the effectiveness of the preferred option in achieving the review’s objectives after 
its implementation, the impact assessment identifies several progress indicators. However, it 
does not change the reporting obligations for public authorities and businesses set under the 
current PTD. These indicators can serve as the basis for a Commission report to be produced 
five years after the amending directive is adopted. The information needed will be collected 
through  surveys  to  stakeholder  groups  (including  travellers,  consumer  organisations,  travel 
businesses and national authorities). Such surveys will also be useful to feed into subsequent 
evaluations. 

3