generally rather strictly apply local standards with the burden of proof on the claimant.9 According to Austrian and German case law, any circumstance which falls within the general risks and hazards in life such as the hazards usually connected to travel (like getting an infection,10 becoming victim of a car accident or a pickpocket) or typical for the activities carried out at the destination (swimming, skiing, etc.) does not constitute a lack of conformity.11 Same applies to countryspeci!c conditions like a more exuberant street life with music until late night in southern countries, left-hand tra$c in the U.K., rainy seasons in Southeast Asia or local dress codes. "ese di%erences cannot be regarded as any detriment but are the reason for travelling: “newness rather than sameness is the essence of tourism”.12 If the continuation of the trip becomes unreasonable because of events like terrorist threats, pandemic outbreaks, outbreaks of a civil war or similar, a distinction has to be made with regard to whether the particular event had been foreseeable at the time of booking. If it had been foreseeable, it can neither be regarded a “lack of conformity” nor an “extraordinary circumstance” because the traveller had (at least: implicitly) accepted the risk when concluding the contract. If it had not been foreseeable and there is a real hazard and not only a subjective perception of such hazard, such event can constitute a lack of conformity – at least if it occurs at the traveller’s destination or its immediate vicinity.13 I. PRICE REDUCTION 1) General Remarks In case of a lack of conformity, Article 14 (1) provides for a right to an appropriate price reduction for the period e%ected by the lack of conformity. "is concept of price reduction has a long tradition in Austrian and German law and has led to extensive case law. In its judgment in case C-469/24 - Tuleka,14 the CJEU ruled that the claim for price reduction only serves to restore the 9 See Wilson v Best Travel [1993] 1 All ER 353; Lougheed v On the Beach [2014] EWCA Civ 1538; Kerr v !omas Cook [2015] NIBQ 9. 10 See most recently: German Supreme Court (BGH) judgment of 20 Jan. 2026, X ZR 15/25, ECLI:DE:BGH:2026:200126UXZR15.25.0; likewise: BGH judgment of 18 Feb. 2025, X ZR 68/24, ECLI:DE:BGH:2025:180225UXZR68.24.0. 11 BeckOGK/Sorge §651i BGB para 150 and following. 12 John Downes, IFTTA Journal of Travel and Tourism Law 12/00, 29. 13 See Article 12 (2) of the Directive. 14 CJEU judment of 23 Oct. 2025 in case C-469/24 – Tuleka. 347 ARTICLE 14 | MICHAEL WUKOSCHITZ
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==