INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM, TRAVEL AND HOSPITALITY LAW silent on the legal significance of a travel warning or advisory issued by governments <...>". In the absence of such a regulation in the Travel Directive itself, the procedures for making recommendations by the competent authorities of the Member States binding are also not enshrined in domestic law. Notwithstanding this, the right of travellers under the Travel Directive to terminate an organised package travel contract without payment of a cancellation fee can effectively be exercised by determining the existence of extraordinary circumstances not only on the basis of recommendations issued by the competent authorities of the Member States, but also on the basis of various factual indicators of special circumstances (recommendations, decisions of the WHO, factual data from the destination, etc). Therefore, although, as the Court of Justice pointed out in its preliminary ruling, the finding of unavoidable and unusual circumstances does not depend on the publication by the competent authorities of an official recommendation to travellers not to go to the destination in question, those recommendations, as one of the indicators of unavoidable and unusual circumstances, play an important role for travellers, as average consumers, in deciding whether or not they have acquired the right to cancel the travel contract for the journey without having to pay termination charges (point 37 of the judgment). In the light of all the foregoing, the answer to the first question is that Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302, read in the light of point 12 of Article 3 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that "the finding that "unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances", within the meaning of those provisions, have arisen at or in the immediate vicinity of the place of destination of a journey is not subject to the condition that the competent authorities have issued an official recommendation advising travellers against travelling to the area concerned or an official decision classifying that area as a "risk area". 3. ON THE SECOND QUESTION REFERRED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING As can be seen from the disposition of Article 12(2) of the Travel Directive, a significant impact on the performance of the package is not necessarily linked to objective impossibility. The Court of Justice has also stated that "<...> while any lack of conformity affecting the performance of a package in progress cannot justify the termination of the corresponding travel contract without
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==