INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM, TRAVEL AND HOSPITALITY LAW outbreak of the COVID-19 outbreak had been reduced. The tour operator refused the traveller's request on the grounds that the trip would take place and that there were no disruptions to the travel. The traveller's family did not go on the trip but brought an action before the national court, claiming that they were entitled to recover the full amount of the money they had paid to the tour operator, since the cancellation of the package contract was on account of the occurrence, at the place of destination of the package tour or in the immediate vicinity thereof, of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances which were likely to make it impossible to carry out the tour safely or to transport the passengers to the destination, in particular without exposing them to inconvenience or health risks. The traveller's position was based on the fact that in February 2020, information published by both the competent authorities and the media about the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic raised reasonable doubts as to the safety of the journey and whether it was possible to undertake it at all. Thus, the increase in the number of cases of COVID-19 infection around the world, flight restrictions, the adoption of official recommendations advising travellers against going to crowded places and travelling abroad, and the adoption of other measures to contain the spread of COVID-19, would demonstrate the existence of a situation of danger on a global scale. The tour operator disputed the validity of the traveller's claims and argued that on the date of termination of the contract for the travel package in question, 27 February 2020, there was no outbreak of COVID-19, the World Health Organisation had not yet declared COVID19 to be a global pandemic, and the travel package could therefore have been, and as was subsequently discovered, had been, implemented. The national courts of first instance and appeal dismissed the traveller's claim because there was no reason to consider the circumstances relied on by the traveller as "force majeure" circumstances within the meaning of Article 6.750 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which is the term used in Lithuanian law to define the concept of "unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances" referred to in Article 12 (2) of Directive 2015/2302. Moreover, the traveller ordered the trip on 10 February 2020, when the security measures had already been published, and only 17 days after the traveller ordered the trip, the level of risk associated with the trip had not changed.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==