INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM, TRAVEL AND HOSPITALITY LAW We find two possibilities in the different language versions: signed agreement or written agreement. The signed agreement of the passenger comes from the French, English, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Bulgarian, Spanish, Greek, Czech and Finnish languages. In contrast, the written agreement comes from the Danish, Portuguese, German, Estonian, Croatian, Hungarian, Dutch, Polish, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian and Swedish languages. However, the wording used in one of the language versions of a European standard cannot serve as the sole basis for its interpretation nor have priority concerning other language versions, requiring that the provisions of Union law be interpreted and applied in a manner uniform, in the light of the versions written in all its languages. Given the objective of ensuring a high level of protection for air passengers (recitals 1,2 and 4) and the duty of information incumbent upon the operating air carrier (recital 20), it is necessary to consider that the concept of "passenger's written agreement" "it presupposes, firstly, that that passenger was able to make an effective and informed choice and, therefore, freely and informedly consent to the reimbursement of his ticket in the form of a travel voucher and not in the form of an amount in cash.". Therefore, the passenger must be provided with clear and complete information about the different ways of refunding their ticket so that they can give their free and informed consent in the form of a travel voucher. Therefore, concerning a passenger whose flight has been cancelled, there is a duty on the air carrier to provide him, loyally, with clear and complete information about the different methods of refunding his ticket by article 7(3). If this does not occur, it cannot be considered that conditions were met for an "effective and informed choice" that resulted in "free and informed consent to a reimbursement by a travel voucher”. In this sense, it cannot be considered that according to the CJEU the “passenger cannot be deemed to have given his or her ‘ agreement ’ within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 where the operating air carrier presents, inter alia on its website, information relating to the procedure for reimbursement of the cost of a ticket in an ambiguous manner or in part or in a language in which the passenger cannot reasonably be expected to be proficient, or even in an unfair manner, in particular by making reimbursement of the cost of that ticket by a sum of money subject to a procedure containing steps supplementary to the procedure for reimbursement by a travel voucher.” (emphasis added). This part of the ruling would be decisive in the present case in which passengers could easily opt for immediate reimbursement through travel vouchers by filling out an online form, precisely what best served the carrier's interests during a severe treasury crisis due to the pandemic. However, they did not have the same digital facility for reimbursement in another form, e.g.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==