REVISION OF THE EUROPEAN PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE Such interpretation is indeed appropriate since even the organiser’s rights arising from unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances are not tied only to the place of destination.22 Official travel warnings and travel restrictions During the COVID-19 pandemic, several questions emerged as to the meaning and the role of official travel warnings and travel restrictions when interpreting the concept of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances. While some scholars have already made it clear that restrictions of public life, including the prohibition of movement and the prohibition of providing tourist services may constitute unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances,23 AG Medina remained rather reserved in this regard in her opinion in case C-299/22. Therein, she suggested the interpretation according to which official travel warnings or advice do not constitute a necessary or sufficient condition for the establishment of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances.24 This position seems logical: The existence of travel warnings is an indication that unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances exist, while the absence of such warnings does not necessarily mean that there is no emergency situation present. The CJEU followed the AG’s Opinion and held in its judgment in case C-299/22 that the existence of such recommendations cannot constitute a requirement of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances25: However, they might be given an evidential value but not to that extent that their non-existence would be sufficient to prevent the occurrence of those circumstances from being established.26 Influenced by theory and practice, the Commission proposed a new provision (Article 12(3a) of the proposed Directive) that considers official travel warnings issued by authorities or serious restrictions covering the travel destination or after returning from there as important elements in assessing the existence of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances. Related to travel restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, the CJEU judgment in case C-128/2227 should be mentioned where the Court held that EU law does not preclude Member States to introduce travel restrictions on public health grounds (including high-risk zones) connected with combating the COVID-19 pandemic. 22 See also: Wukoschitz in: Torres et al., 2020, p. 193. 23 Ibid., p. 195. 24 Para. 34 of the Opinion. 25 Para. 36 of the Judgment. 26 Para. 37 of the Judgment. 27 CJEU, case C-128/22, Nordic Info BV v Belgische Staat of 5 December 2023.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==