ijTTHL12026

International Journal of Tourism, Travel and Hospitality Law 1 | 2026

ISSN 2184-8793 ISSNe 2975-9056 All Rights Reserved. No part of this journal may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. A written permission must also be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature. This work is published for general guidance only and is not intended as a substitute for professional advice. While every precaution has been taken in the preparation of the text, the publishers and authors can accept no responsibility for the consequences of any errors, however caused. This edition was published in 2026 by ESHTE, alongside other universities and institutions And

Contents Christopher Deacon Package travel reform and the UK: pioneering divergence in a closely aligned market or following in the shadow of the EU? 1 UK proposals for reform 2 EU proposals for reform 2 An over-arching concern 3 Should the PTRs continue to apply to UK-only package holidays? 3 How should Linked Travel Arrangements (LTAs) be regulated? 5 What should the government do about insolvency protection and insurance for holiday bookings? 7 How should ‘other tourist services’ be dealt with when forming part of a package? 9 An opportunity for the UK to evolve without straying too far from the EU’s shadow 10 Carlos Torres The revision of the New Package Travel Directive 11 I. Introduction: Modifications to the existing framework in the context of maximum harmonisation 12 II. The elimination of the typology of linked travel arrangements and the concomitant creation of a non-typology for (in)determined situations that do not result in the creation of a package 13 III. Adjustments to the concept of package and other definitions 14 IV. Pre-contractual information 14 V. Pre-contractual information for booking services that do not lead to the creation of a package 15 VI. Inclusion of new details in the travel contract 16 VII. Traveller’s right to terminate the package travel contract and the right of withdrawal before the start of the package 17 VIII. Vouchers 18 IX. Handling complaints 19 X. Protection in case of insolvency 19 XI. The organiser’s right to reimbursement from service providers 20 XII. Final Note 21

X CONTENTS Sarah Prager Reversal of the Burden of Proof in Package Travel Cases: the Approach of the Courts of England and Wales 23 Carlos Torres The principle of Member States’ procedural autonomy on the 50th anniversary of the Rewe and Comet cases 27 I. Introduction 28 II. The cases Rewe and Comet: equivalence and effectiveness principles 29 III. The limitations were introduced at the turn of the millennium. The fort growth of consumer law and the Europeanisation of civil procedure 31 IV. Tension between procedural autonomy and harmonisation. Principle expressing national sovereignty or delimiting competences 31 V. The Different Faces of Procedural Autonomy: A Chameleon-like Figure 34 Carlos Torres The principle of party autonomy guiding the civil procedure of the Member State, in light of the judge’s ex officio power/duty to raise the Union rule protecting the consumer 37 I. Introduction 38 II. The Facts 38 III. The omission in Article 5 NPTD 39 IV. Questions from the Spanish court about Article 5 NPTD 40 V. The role of the CJEU and national courts 41 VI. Procedural autonomy and the judge’s ex officio action 42 VII. Limits of ex officio judicis 44 Carlos Torres Burden of proof in a case of strict liability for the organiser: the disappearance of a mother and daughter during a canoe trip in Mauritius 45 I. Introduction 46 II. Burden of proof and strict liability 47

XI CONTENTS Alejandro Corral Sastre The legal dilemma of ex-post controls in Tourism: reflections on judgment 626/2026, of may 19, of the Spanish Supreme Court (Administrative Litigation Chamber) 51 I. Introduction 51 II. Prior Authorizations vs. Declaraciones Responsables: A Distinct Dichotomy 52 III. The Interpretation of the Spanish Supreme Court 53 IV. The Hierarchy of Public Interest: Proportionality in Oversight 54 V. The Structural Failure of Ex-Post Controls 55 VI. Beyond Authorizations and Declarations: Intelligent Governance for Real-Time Oversight 57 VII. Conclusions 57 VIII. References 58 Chiara Tincani “PDO tourism” and the Italian system 61 I. Food and wine tourism and “PDO tourism” 61 II. EU Regulation No. 1143 of 2024 and its objectives 63 III. EU Regulation No. 1143 of 2024 and producer groups 65 IV. The Italian experience and the protection consortia 66 V. The Italian experience and “PDO tourism” 67 Fernando Rodrigues Martins, Miguel Cabral de Araújo Martins ‘Stomach Rules’ and consumer promotion: a necessary scientific investigation in the formation of Gastronomic Law 69 I. Introduction 69 II. Formulation of a Concept 72 II. Epistemological Complexity and Gastronomic Law 76 III. Menu of Principles, Consumer Promotion, and Theatricalization of the Body 88 IV. Final Considerations 91 V. References 92 Enrico Gragnoli “Workation” and the employment relationship 99 I. The success of the “workation” portmanteau and of the underlying idea of combining vacation and work 100

XII CONTENTS II. Remote work in contemporary society and its impact on tourism experiences 101 III. The concept of vacation and the principle of prevalence to confirm their enjoyment 104 IV. “Workation” and the law applying to the work relationship 106 V. “Workation” and the identification of the court of competent jurisdiction 107 VI. Concepts that are similar to “workation” in the tourism service market 108 Francesco Gaspari The “Do No Significant Harm” (DNSH) principle in the multilevel legal system and in the Italian case-law: its impact across sectors, with particular reference to the tourism domain 111 I. The “Do No Significant Harm” (DNSH) principle 111 II. The Taxonomy Regulation 114 III. The DNSH and the tourism sector 116 IV. The DNSH in the Recovery and Resilience Facility 118 V. The Italian case-law on the DNSH 120 VI. Final remarks 125 Ginevra Gelsomini The right to a healthy environment as a fundamental right: between legal recognition and climate justice 127 I. Introduction 128 II. The origins of the right to a healthy environment: From the Stockholm Conference to contemporary international law 129 III. The formal recognition of the right to a healthy environment in contemporary international law 132 IV. International Jurisprudence: from theory to applied practice 133 V. The right to a healthy environment in Europe: from the EU legal framework to Italy’s constitutional reform 137 VI. Final remarks 141 Francisca Ramón Fernández La protección en el Derecho español de las recetas gastronómicas 143 Introducción 143 I. La creación gastronómica 145

XIII CONTENTS II. La protección de las recetas gastronómicas en el Ordenamiento Jurídico Español 145 Conclusiones 165 Bibliografía 166 Francisca Ramón Fernández El Turismo Gastronómico en La Huerta de València y el diseño de Rutas Turísticas para la dinamización del espacio territorial y su sostenibilidad 173 Introducción 175 I. La huerta de valència y su especial protección 177 II. Turismo gastronómico en la huerta de valència 186 III. Diseño de rutas turísticas para la dinamización de la huerta de valència y su sostenibilidad 189 Conclusiones 192 Bibliografía 194 Referencias legislativas 198

Package travel reform and the UK: pioneering divergence in a closely aligned market or following in the shadow of the EU? Christopher Deacon1 UK proposals for reform. – EU proposals for reform. – An over-arching concern. – Should the PTRs continue to apply to UK-only package holidays? – How should Linked Travel Arrangements (LTAs) be regulated? – What should the government do about insolvency protection and insurance for holiday bookings? – How should ‘other tourist services’ be dealt with when forming part of a package? – An opportunity for the UK to evolve without straying too far from the EU’s shadow. As the package travel industry recovered from the Covid-19 pandemic, legislators in both the UK and EU turned their minds to package travel reform following the implementation of Directive (EU) 2015/2302, which came into force in July 2018. While the EU’s emphasis was on ensuring the industry could respond in future times of crisis, notably regarding consumer ability to receive timely and effective refunds of monies paid where travel services could not proceed, the UK’s proposals for reform extend to the fundamental scope of package travel legislation. While in theory the UK can now make its own journey when reforming the UK’s position on package travel regulation, there is clear overlap in the intentions of each legislator. To what extent, therefore, are we likely to see pioneering divergence given the reality of the close alignment in the UK and EU’s travel industries? Will the UK continue to follow in the shadow of the EU, with UK-based travel operators who also conduct business in the EU (and vice versa) keen to see as unified a system as possible maintained? This article focuses on the UK government’s 2025 consultation and the importance of maintaining consumer protections, notably in relation to the regime imposing liability for lack of conformity on tour operators, which importantly extends to claims for serious personal injury. DOI 10.60559/ijtthl2026-001 1 Partner, Stewarts.

UK PROPOSALS FOR REFORM The UK implemented the last package travel directive through the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018, which remained in force following Brexit. Reform of the 2018 Regulations has, however, been in the gaze of successive governments, with the Conservatives launching a call for evidence in 2023 and (following its victory in the July 2024 UK general election) the Labour government’s Department for Business and Trade (DBT) issuing a formal consultation, which closed on 30 June 2025. As summarised on the DBT’s website, the UK’s consultation includes proposals in relation to: • reforming the domestic package market to exempt domestic (UK) holidays that do not contain a booked travel element from the regulations • reforming linked travel arrangements (LTAs) by either removing or simplifying the definition of LTAs • examining the case for setting a time limit for third parties to provide redress to organisers where the third party has contributed to the event but has not already provided redress directly to the consumer – this is to respond to difficulties some package organisers have in exercising their right to recoup refund monies from suppliers • further technical changes to make clearer what services are within the scope of the regulations, and to reform measures around insolvency protection EU PROPOSALS FOR REFORM At a similar time to the UK’s 2023 call for evidence, on 29 November 2023 the European Commission proposed various amendments to the package travel directive. The EU’s proposals are said to have a closer link to the Covid-19 pandemic and the way in which the industry responds to consumer needs in a time of crisis, with the European Commission identifying the following areas of focus: • rules on voluntary vouchers and clarifications or additional rules on refunds where packages are cancelled due to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances, including with regard to insolvency protection • guidance or additional provisions on the national insolvency protection systems, plus the potential creation of an EU insolvency back-up fund 2 CHRISTOPHER DEACON

• the potential creation of a special fund/special funds at national or Union level to cover refunds in times of crisis without requiring the insolvency of the relevant package organiser • a possible limitation of pre-payments to be made by package travellers, reducing the need for insolvency protection, and avoiding/limiting the risk for travellers of having to wait for refunds, in particular, in times of crisis • recommendations or rules on refunds from providers of travel services (e.g. airlines) to package organisers • possible alternatives to the current rules on linked travel arrangements if similar guarantees can be provided in a simpler way, e.g., through certain rules on intermediaries and insolvency protection requirements for certain service providers. The EU’s proposed reforms were approved by the European Parliament during a first reading in September 2025. AN OVER-ARCHING CONCERN There can be no doubt that the EU legislators and the CJEU have an acute focus on ensuring a high degree of consumer protection in this area of the law. While this must be balanced with a regime that facilitates innovation and the ability of the travel industry to adapt and survive, any attempts at divergence in the UK must ensure the highest level of consumer protection. This is notably the case for individuals who sustain a life-changing injury while travelling overseas or in the UK for holidays or business, which the package travel directive and UK Regulations have always captured through the liability regime that makes the tour operator responsible for a lack of conformity in the performance of the services forming part of the package holiday contract. SHOULD THE PTRS CONTINUE TO APPLY TO UK-ONLY PACKAGE HOLIDAYS? The UK government is considering exempting domestic package holidays that do not include the transport of passengers from the regulations, on the basis that this may encourage businesses to offer more choice and more cost-effective 3 PACKAGE TRAVEL REFORM AND THE UK: PIONEERING DIVERGENCE

domestic packages to customers. This issue would not arise in the context of the EU’s reforms as it would undermine the whole purpose of EU directives and the integrity of the internal market. Such considerations do not appear to trouble the UK government, no doubt due to the history of devolved government and the age-old distinction between the three jurisdictions making up the UK (England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland). While the UK government’s consultation proposes that consumers may benefit from increased choice because of reduced regulatory burdens, consumers would lose the extra protections provided by the package travel regulations and be forced to rely on general consumer law protections if the scope were narrowed to overseas package holidays only. The proposal to remove some UK-only domestic package holidays from the protections offered by the package travel regulations notably gives rise to the following concerns: • Research published in November 2024 by the UK DBT and conducted on its behalf by Verian has shown that consumers are prepared to pay a premium for package holidays due to the protections provided by the package travel regulations2, including an additional premium of £106 for a domestic package holiday. Removing domestic package holidays from the scope of these protections would disadvantage consumers, reduce choice, increase costs and remove insolvency protections and protections that ensure the proper performance of travel services. • The creation of two separate regimes for domestic and international travel may result in increased confusion for consumers. UK-only package holidays can be equally and sometimes more expensive than international travel, with similar issues arising if things go wrong. There is a strong argument, therefore, that they should not be subject to different regulations or responsibilities on the part of the package organiser. • Removing some UK-only domestic package holidays would disproportionately affect certain sections of society, including those with lower incomes, senior citizens and those with disabilities who may need or want to avoid international travel3. Legislative reform should ensure 2 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67e69c1337baea91c58c9ffa/Package_Travel_-_Updating_ the_Framework_-_Consumer_Research_Report.pdf 3 Research conducted by the UK’s DFT in 2024 showed that people with some health problems or disabilities are more likely to choose to holiday in the UK, either through a package holiday or an LTA, but are less likely to travel overall: Research into the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 (PTRs) – a discrete choice experiment, Table 9, p.25 4 CHRISTOPHER DEACON

fairness and inclusion for all travellers, not take the industry a step backwards when there is already so much more that needs to be done, for example on accessible air travel. As a starting point, any changes made to the 2018 Regulations must not introduce additional layers of complexity. There is already a lack of understanding as to some aspects of the 2018 Regulations amongst consumers, and any amendments must look to improve transparency and consumer trust in the industry, not take it backwards. HOW SHOULD LINKED TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS (LTAS) BE REGULATED? LTAs are formed when a combination of two or more types of travel services is linked, but sold separately under different contracts. The current definition of an LTA is complex, making it difficult for consumers to understand when they have purchased an LTA. When provided with a definition of an LTA, over 73% of respondents said that they still found the difference between an LTA and a package holiday confusing or that they did not understand at all.4 When even further explanation was given, 46% of consumers still did not properly understand the protections. The nature and extent of consumer protections under LTAs are also complex. Consumers may mistakenly believe they are well-protected; however, unlike package holidays, LTAs only provide insolvency protections. This confusion extends to travel organisers themselves, as evidence suggests that organisers may not realise that they have created an LTA, or the obligations they owe to/ protections enjoyed by consumers under an LTA. LTAs do not benefit from the Regulation 15 protections that apply to package holidays. Regulation 15 holds the package holiday organiser responsible for any lack of conformity during the performance of a travel service forming part of the package. As things stand, consumers of LTAs are at risk of having to rely on alternative means of redress should a problem arise, notably in any claim for personal injury damages following an incident while on holiday. The UK government’s consultation notes that LTAs are confusing, rarely used and challenging to enforce. In response, the UK government is proposing to 4 Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) “Wish you were clear” poll, p.5 5 PACKAGE TRAVEL REFORM AND THE UK: PIONEERING DIVERGENCE

either leave LTAs as they are or retain the LTA category but seek to limit how an LTA can be created. Simplifying the system may include replacing the two LTA types currently in existence with a single definition or introducing additional requirements that might clarify the circumstances under which a trader has facilitated the formation of an LTA. With the EU also contemplating reforms to LTAs, there is broad consensus that the definition must be simplified. The EU proposes that the definition of what constitutes a ‘package’ is extended to include the purchase of at least two services from separate traders if the purchases are made through a linked online booking process. The definition of LTAs would be narrowed so that it only applies to any combination of different services that do not meet the definition of a package where: “following the payment of a first travel service to a trader – the consumer would, at this trader’s invitation, purchase an additional type of travel service from a third trader at the latest 24 hours following the confirmation of the first contract.” The UK’s DFT notes that there are two types of LTA under the current 2018 Regulations: • type A LTAs: the selection and payment of 2 or more services for the same trip, under separate contracts with individual providers, upon a single contact with a point of sale • type B LTAs: the separate selection and payment of 2 or more travel services for the same trip through targeted linked booking processes within 24 hours without transferring the traveller’s payment details The UK government has floated the possibility of removing type B LTAs altogether and amending the definition of type A LTAs to require bookings to be made by selecting two or more services from a trader’s website (or another website of that trader) within a 24-hour period, on the basis “this could better suit online purchasing and addresses confusion reported to us around establishing a single visit to a point of sale.”5 If the UK pursues this proposal then there would be clear divergence with the EU position where type A LTAs become package holidays and type B LTAs are modified to expressly require cross-selling of the consumer from trader X to trader Y within a 24-hour period. Whichever way the UK lands on the scope of LTAs, in view of the complexity of the definitions and the confusion this causes to consumers, there is an argument 5 See UK government’s consultation document: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/packagetravel-legislation-consultation-on-proposed-amendments/package-travel-updating-the-framework-2025 6 CHRISTOPHER DEACON

for imposing a clear obligation on travel providers to ensure consumers are aware of when an LTA has been created and what protections are offered; this is a change which could be implemented in both the UK and EU. A perhaps bold but straightforward move would be to legislate so that LTAs are incorporated in their entirety into the definition of a package under Regulation 2, eliminating confusion for both consumers and providers. This would also extend the package travel protections for lack of conformity under Regulation 15, demonstrating the UK’s confidence to diverge and lead the way in providing a high degree of consumer protection for both insolvency and liability issues to a wider range of holiday types and bookings. WHAT SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT DO ABOUT INSOLVENCY PROTECTION AND INSURANCE FOR HOLIDAY BOOKINGS? Under the current regulations, organisers are required to arrange insolvency protection for consumers through bonds, insurance or setting up a trust account (with insurance in place for repatriation). The UK government is exploring the possibility of making the provision of insolvency protection more flexible for travel organisers by allowing them to combine arrangements, with a mix of trust and insurance or trust and bonding. It is also considering replacing the territorial restrictions on insurance cover for organisers, as policies must currently be held with an insurer authorised in the UK, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. To maintain a high degree of confidence in the package travel industry, any amendments to the insolvency protection regime under the package travel regulations must ensure robust, watertight protections for consumers. Consumers should not be forced to rely on alternative legislation, such as the protections under the UK’s Consumer Credit Act 1974, which may have varying efficacy and may also be subject to future amendment6. Businesses can be allowed more flexibility in how they meet their insolvency obligations, provided there is no detriment to consumers. However, the proposal to relax territorial restrictions on insurance cover could introduce unforeseen risks to consumers and businesses in relation to enforcement and jurisdictional issues in the context of disputes and data protection. 6 The UK government consulted on reform to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 from 19 May to 21 July 2025, with the second phase of its reform/consultation expected to touch on consumer credit protection offered by section 75 of the 1974 Act. 7 PACKAGE TRAVEL REFORM AND THE UK: PIONEERING DIVERGENCE

There is also the broader concern that tour operators are not currently required to have compulsory liability insurance. This creates a significant risk for consumers, particularly where a tour operator is underinsured or uninsured for liability for serious injury. By legally mandating that high levels of liability insurance be obtained from insurers within the UK, the package travel regulations can better protect both consumers and operators involved in potential claims from consumers who have been seriously injured or involved in a fatal accident, with an effective means of redress being available to consumers even if the tour operator becomes insolvent. As this author noted in the Association of Personal Injury’s PI Focus (2021), the public needs to be protected from the risks of tour operator insolvency through public liability insurance: When Thomas Cook collapsed in September 2019, many holidaymakers who had sustained injuries while on a package holiday with the tour operator were surprised to learn that it did not have public liability insurance to cover their claims. Thomas Cook largely self-insured its liability to pay compensation to customers. It only held liability insurance for cases of the utmost severity where the damages would run into several million pounds. This means that the vast majority of customers bringing a claim against Thomas Cook at the time of its collapse (or thereafter) will likely never receive full (if any) compensation. This includes financial losses those customers may endure on a lifelong basis as a result of a serious injury while on holiday. In early 2020, the National Audit Office warned that the UK taxpayer may be required to step in once again if there was another large-scale tour operator failure along the lines of Thomas Cook. This is because the ATOL Air Travel Trust Fund was left depleted after paying out £481m due to Thomas Cook’s failure and the UK government indicated it would guarantee payments if the ATOL fund is unable to make them. There is already pressure from within the travel industry to reform the ATOL scheme. Tour operators should be legally required to have a minimum level of liability insurance in place to cover claims made by customers who are seriously injured or impacted by a fatal accident on a package holiday. Compulsory insurance will build and maintain consumer confidence in the package travel industry when it is most needed. It would shift the burden of financial failure from consumers and taxpayers to tour operators and the insurance market, and ensure consumers have an effective means of redress if the worst comes to pass. 8 CHRISTOPHER DEACON

While it is set to tighten the requirements for financial protection of consumer monies in the event of insolvency, like the UK as things stand, the EU does not intend to go as far as a compulsory insurance to meet liability for lack of conformity that results in serious personal injury to travellers. HOW SHOULD ‘OTHER TOURIST SERVICES’ BE DEALT WITH WHEN FORMING PART OF A PACKAGE? Under the UK’s 2018 Regulations, for ‘other tourist services’ to form part of the package holiday they must account for a ‘significant proportion’ of the value of the package holiday or represent an ‘essential feature’. This is yet another area of consumer confusion, with the UK government recognising the definition causes ambiguity. Under the EU’s 2015 Directive, a ‘significant proportion’ is equal to or more than 25% of the value of the package. The UK is considering diverging from this requirement by removing the significant proportion criterion; there is a compelling argument to do so. As noted by The Forum of Complex Injury Solicitors (FOCIS) in its response to the 2025 consultation on package travel reform: Complexity and ambiguity in the law, including in contract terms, affects consumers’ ability to understanding their rights. In turn, this impacts public trust and confidence in the PTRs and also increases the likelihood of satellite disputes between the parties should a dispute occur. Other tourist services are as likely to cause harm as other elements of a package holiday and as such, the consumer ought to be afford protections and a means of redress under the PTRs. This is particularly important where a consumer has purchased a package holiday which includes services such as excursions, as the consumer may not have knowledge of the identity, credentials or insurance coverage of any local service providers contracted by the tour operator. If the term is not removed, it must be carefully reviewed and comprehensive amendments made to remove any ambiguity for both consumers and tour operators. The concept of ‘essential feature’ is no less ambiguous and open to a subjective interpretation. If the other tourist service in question has formed part of the tour operator’s marketing or has otherwise induced the consumer into making a booking then it should be considered an essential feature by default. A tightened definition is required to avoid satellite factual disputes as to whether or the travel services benefit from the package travel protections. 9 PACKAGE TRAVEL REFORM AND THE UK: PIONEERING DIVERGENCE

The EU’s current proposals for reform do not contemplate the definition of ‘other tourist services’, highlighting a further area of likely divergence in the UK’s approach, but one where again the UK could lead boldly in demonstrating a path to enhanced consumer protection and greater confidence in the package travel industry. AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE UK TO EVOLVE WITHOUT STRAYING TOO FAR FROM THE EU’S SHADOW As the UK government continues to analyse feedback received during the 2025 consultation, the extent of any future divergence from the EU directive remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the current complexities surrounding the 2018 Regulations and the concept of LTAs fashioned therein create confusion for consumers and increase the risk of satellite disputes. To improve and maintain trust in the travel industry, any reforms must not create additional complexity or erode protections available to consumers. Instead, any changes by the UK government should build on the safeguards of consumer protection that underpin the 2018 Regulations, making it simpler for tour operators to outline and meet their obligations to customers, listening and responding to the concerns raised by stakeholders from the personal injury and consumer rights sectors. While there are areas where the UK could boldly diverge, such as compulsory liability insurance requirements which can be seen in other heavily regulated areas like employer’s liability, despite tentative signs the UK government is willing to do so, will the UK really stray too far from the shadow cast by the EU and its package travel directive in this important area of consumer protection? 10 CHRISTOPHER DEACON

The revision of the New Package Travel Directive Carlos Torres1 I. Introduction: Modifications to the existing framework in the context of maximum harmonisation. – II. The elimination of the typology of linked travel arrangements and the concomitant creation of a non-typology for (in)determined situations that do not result in the creation of a package. – III. Adjustments to the concept of package and other definitions. – IV. Pre-contractual information. – V. Pre-contractual information for booking services that do not lead to the creation of a package. – VI. Inclusion of new details in the travel contract. – VII. Traveller’s right to terminate the package travel contract and the right of withdrawal before the start of the package. – VIII. Vouchers. – IX. Handling complaints. – X. Protection in case of insolvency. – XI. The organiser’s right to reimbursement from service providers. – XII. Final Note. The article analyses Directive (EU) 2026/1024, which amends Directive (EU) 2015/2302 on package travel (NPTD), with a focus on its objective to enhance traveller protection and clarify the existing EU framework without replacing it. The revision operates under a model of maximum harmonisation, leaving Member States limited discretion in transposition. It codifies recent CJEU case law and integrates lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic and the Thomas Cook insolvency, refining rather than reshaping the regime. A central reform is the elimination of the 2015 category of “linked travel arrangements” and its facilitator, which had introduced complexity and legal uncertainty without demonstrable benefit for travellers; this removal entails numerous textual adjustments beginning with Article 1 and extending across the Directive. The concept of “package” is fine-tuned in Article 3(2), clarifying that separate invoicing cannot be used to avoid package qualification and that charging a global price triggers the legal classification of a package; improvements to the criteria for 25% of the value of the combination and click-through package. The revision also broadens and clarifies pre-contractual information duties in Article 5, including adaptation duties for travellers with reduced mobility (covering both disabilities and other permanent or temporary conditions), a requirement DOI 10.60559/ijtthl2026-002 1 Estoril Higher Institute for Tourism and Hotel Studies, email: carlos.torres@eshte.pt

to consider specific needs communicated by travellers, robust contact details for effective communication, and mandatory disclosure of loyalty points and other reward benefits. Travellers’ contractual autonomy is strengthened by transforming the possibility of terminating before the start of the package into an express right, subject to an “appropriate and justifiable” termination fee, thereby placing the burden on organisers to ensure that the contract stipulates that such a fee may be charged. On the regulatory front, Article 18 is amended to require enhanced cooperation and information exchange among Member States regarding insolvency protection and reimbursement mechanisms. In B2B relations, the new Article 22(2) obliges Member States to establish an automatic refund mechanism in favour of organisers within seven days if a service provider cancels or fails to perform part of a package. This places organiser–provider relations firmly within contractual liability, while organisers remain strictly liable towards travellers under Article 13(1). Finally, Annex I is replaced and Annex II deleted to reflect the removal of linked travel arrangements. Transposition is due by 29 September 2028, and the new rules apply from 29 March 2029 across the European Union. Keywords: Directive (EU) 2026/1024, Directive (EU) 2015/2302, maximum harmonisation, package travel, linked travel arrangements, traveller protection; concept of “package”, pre‑contractual information, insolvency protection, organiser–service provider relations (B2B), complaints handling. I. INTRODUCTION: MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK IN THE CONTEXT OF MAXIMUM HARMONISATION On 8 May, Directive (EU) 2026/1024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2026 (NPTDrev) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (L Series ), amending Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (NPTD) with the aim of “make the protection of travellers more effective and to simplify and clarify certain aspects” of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (NPTD). However, this is not a new directive replacing the previous one, as happened in 2015, when the current NPTD repealed Directive 90/314/EEC (abbreviated PTD), creating a new EU framework for package and linked travel arrangements. It should be recalled that the current NPTD, unlike the PTD, which gave States considerable leeway in its transposition into national laws, imposes a high 12 CARLOS TORRES

degree of harmonisation. Therefore, appeals to national governments to correct divergent or omitted guidelines will be ineffective, since transposition resembles a copy-and-paste process. The thirty-three recitals explain the modification of several articles. It is a simple revision of the existing framework, incorporating into the legislative text the recent decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), as well as lessons learned from the pandemic and the bankruptcy of Thomas Cook. Far from a legislative reform or a new framework, the existing framework is being refined. II. THE ELIMINATION OF THE TYPOLOGY OF LINKED TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS AND THE CONCOMITANT CREATION OF A NON-TYPOLOGY FOR (IN)DETERMINED SITUATIONS THAT DO NOT RESULT IN THE CREATION OF A PACKAGE A major change is the announced elimination of linked travel arrangements, an innovation from 2015 that created a dual typology, which, according to the legislator, has induced greater complexity and legal uncertainty in distinguishing between packages and connected travel services, as well as between the latter and autonomous travel services (recital 5). Since there was no evidence of tangible benefits for travellers, the elimination of the typology and its facilitator2 was inevitable, leading to a significant number of changes, starting with Article 1 and extending to several provisions. Let us hope that identical complexity and, above all, legal uncertainty do not arise from two significant additions incorporated into Articles 1 and 2, namely: • certain aspects of contracts between organisers of packages and travel service providers3, i.e., B2B relationships; and • specific information requirements applicable to certain situations not leading to the creation of a package, e.g. contractual situations that consumers may be led to believe are package, but which do not enjoy their guarantees, particularly protection in case of insolvency, therefore requiring a corresponding warning so that the consumer correctly forms their intention to contract. 2 1 Article 3 (7) “trader facilitating a linked travel arrangement”. 3 Hotels, airlines, restaurants, tour guides. 13 THE REVISION OF THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE

III. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CONCEPT OF PACKAGE AND OTHER DEFINITIONS The updated definition of “package” from 2015, compared to 1990, has proven effective, so only adjustments are made in article 3(2). In subparagraph ii), the irrelevance of the traditional expedient of separate invoicing to exclude the figure of the package is added. In either case, the legislator considers this to be a tactic to avoid the legal classification of a package. The definition of the click-through package [subparagraph v)] is refined. When a named service (transport, accommodation or car rental) is combined with an unnamed service provided for in point d) — for example, a spa or golf — the 25% percentage criterion, already mentioned in recital 18, is now expressly set out in subparagraph a). There is no legislative innovation, as the solution already follows from the combination of the preamble and the articles; it is merely a matter of good legislative technique. In addition to the aforementioned refinement of the concept of package (no. 2), the elimination of linked travel arrangements (no. 5) and the respective facilitator (no. 7), in the definition of unavoidable and exceptional circumstances (no. 12), instead of situation, it now refers to objective circumstances. IV. PRE-CONTRACTUAL INFORMATION In the sensitive and central area of pre-contractual information (Article 5), several changes are introduced. In adapting the package for persons with reduced mobility [viii)], the concept encompasses disabilities as well as other causes, whether permanent or temporary, e.g. a knee injury that requires the use of crutches for a certain period. Additionally, with regard to the information requested by the traveller, the organiser must consider the specific needs communicated by the traveller. Travel is normally subject to unforeseen events; therefore, the phone number and email address provided should allow the traveller to contact the organiser – and the retailer4, if any – quickly and effectively, ensuring communication with both [al. b)] With regard to financial aspects, it is now mandatory to include, in the precontractual information, any existing loyalty points, as well as other benefits arising from reward systems already established [point d)]. 4 If there is a retailer involved, the communication to the operator is made through them (Article 15). 14 CARLOS TORRES

In point g), the optional “may” is replaced by an affirmative “right” to terminate the package travel contract at any time before the start of the package, subject to the payment of an appropriate and justifiable termination fee. This is a cornerstone of consumer law, also affirmed in the travel contract. The revision adds “justifiable,” meaning that, in the absence of a standardised cancellation fee, the organiser has the burden of demonstrating the costs actually incurred, i.e., that the airline did not refund the ticket, that the seat was not occupied by another customer, or that the hotel did not charge for the stay. It seems that travellers can prove that the organiser suffered less damage than alleged, or even that no damage occurred. For example, for departures and returns from the Caribbean with a stay at hotel X, all seats were sold at the same price. Following the Tuk Tuk case, it is added that the traveller, under Article 12(2), has the right to terminate the package travel contract without paying any termination fee if unavoidable and exceptional circumstances arise, as occurred with COVID-19. V. PRE-CONTRACTUAL INFORMATION FOR BOOKING SERVICES THAT DO NOT LEAD TO THE CREATION OF A PACKAGE The additions to Articles 1 and 2 relating to the new non-category, that is, situations that do not lead to the creation of a package, are developed in the new Article 5a, which governs pre-contractual information in specific booking situations, as follows from its heading. The legislator makes an exception to Article 23, which mandates the application of the guarantee regime to packages, despite the organiser’s fraudulent declaration that the services sold do not constitute a package (no. 1) and the non-waivable nature of the rights reserved to the traveller by the NPTD (no. 2). Article 5a describes a situation in which the operator, after the purchase (in person or remotely, the law does not distinguish) of a service, invites the traveller to purchase an additional type of travel service for the same trip or holiday. It cannot include two different travel services5 (transport, accommodation or vehicle rental), because in that case a package is automatically created. Either a travel service contemplated [points a) to c)] is combined, successively and independently of the order, with another tourist service [point d)] or it is exclusively the latter. 5 Article 3 (1). 15 THE REVISION OF THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE

Example: the travel agency or the hotel6, after booking the accommodation7, offers either golf or a spa8. The two-night accommodation costs €900, while the spa costs €35 and golf €50. The traveller must be clearly, understandably, and prominently informed that if the golf, the spa, or both do not total €225 (25% of the combined value), the offer will not constitute a package and will not benefit from its protective scheme. Another possibility is a flight and golf, provided that the cost of the latter does not represent 25% of the total cost of the combination. However, this is no longer a fly-drive, as we are dealing with two distinct travel services9 that automatically form a package. In paragraph 2, the operator invites the traveller to purchase an additional type of travel service before agreeing to pay for the first type of travel service, without informing them that the additional service is not part of a package. If the traveller pays for the additional service at the same point of sale within 24 hours of agreeing to pay for the first service, the first service and the additional service constitute a package, and the operator is considered the organiser. VI. INCLUSION OF NEW DETAILS IN THE TRAVEL CONTRACT Changes occur to the information contained in the package travel contract (Article 7, paragraph 2). This does not refer to new rights, but only to the obligation for the travel contract to mention some of the existing rights. 6 Any service provider can assume the role of organiser (art. 3, no. 8), since the NPTD no longer reserves this role for travel agencies. 7 Main service or named service, in accordance with art. 3, no. 1, point b). 8 Other tourist services that are not part of a travel service within the meaning of points (a), (b) or (c) are covered by point (d) of paragraph 1 of article 3, and recital 18 lists them by way of example: “Other tourist services which are not intrinsically part of carriage of passengers, accommodation or the rental of motor vehicles or certain motorcycles, may be, for instance, admission to concerts, sport events, excursions or event parks, guided tours, ski passes and rental of sports equipment such as skiing equipment, or spa treatments. However, if such services are combined with only one other type of travel service, for instance accommodation, this should lead to the creation of a package or linked travel arrangement only if they account for a significant proportion of the value of the package or linked travel arrangement, or are advertised as or otherwise represent an essential feature of the trip or holiday. If other tourist services account for 25 % or more of the value of the combination, those services should be considered as representing a significant proportion of the value of the package or linked travel arrangement. It should be clarified that where other tourist services are added, for instance, to hotel accommodation, booked as a stand-alone service, after the traveller’s arrival at the hotel, this should not constitute a package. This should not lead to circumvention of this Directive, with organisers or retailers offering the traveller the selection of additional tourist services in advance and then offering conclusion of the contract for those services only after the performance of the first travel service has started.”. 9 The transportation and the rental of cars, as contemplated in points a) and c) of paragraph 1 of article 3. 16 CARLOS TORRES

The obligation to state the organiser’s responsibility for the proper performance of all travel services included in the package travel contract in accordance with Article 13, the responsibility for any refunds due arising from the termination or alteration of the travel contract, and the obligation to provide assistance to the traveller who is in difficulty are added. If there is a retailer, the traveller contacts the organiser via the retailer to send messages, make requests, or submit complaints about the execution of the package, rather than contacting the organiser directly. The package travel contract must also specify the language in which complaints can be submitted and handled, the physical or email address to which complaints can be sent, and information about alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms [point g)]. To ensure greater awareness of its important information, it is determined that the form set out in Annex I must be attached to the package travel contract when the contract is concluded (no. 2 A). VII. TRAVELLER’S RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE PACKAGE TRAVEL CONTRACT AND THE RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL BEFORE THE START OF THE PACKAGE Article 12 (1) reinforces the traveller’s right to cancel the contract at any time before the package begins. This potestative right of the traveller, which can, for example, be exercised the day before departure, is disruptive for the organiser, so the traveller may be required to pay an appropriate and justifiable termination fee. However, the 2026 revision makes such payment conditional on its inclusion in the contract, which represents a significant change from the original text of the NPTD. In the absence of a contractual provision, the organiser’s right to reimbursement is thus precluded, regardless of any high costs they may incur, e.g., neither the airline nor the hotel reimburses reservations made. Detailed adjustments are introduced regarding reasonable standard termination fees, specifying that they can be stipulated “in the form of fixed amounts or percentages of the package price, or by a similar method of calculation”. Paragraph 2 also enshrines the traveller’s right to terminate the package travel contract before the start of the package travel, without paying any termination fee, where it is reasonably foreseeable that the performance of the package travel 17 THE REVISION OF THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE

contract will be significantly affected by unavoidable and exceptional circumstances. The new wording provides that, in addition to the place of destination, such circumstances may also occur at the place of departure, at the place of destination, or in its immediate vicinity, and may considerably affect the traveller’s journey to or from the place of destination. Under the addendum to paragraph 4, refunds must be made regardless of any prior request from the traveller. If the traveller’s payment details are invalid, the 14-day period runs only from the moment the traveller provides the correct details. If, within 14 days of the contract termination, the traveller and the organiser agree to replace the package: • Of equivalent or superior quality: the traveller is not entitled to a refund. • Of lower quality or cost: the organiser must refund the price difference between the original package and the replacement package within 14 days of the agreement. VIII. VOUCHERS The use of vouchers emerged during the pandemic, when organisers faced a serious cash-flow crisis, prompting Member States to create flexible legislation and prompting the Commission to intervene to restrict them. The regime now published in the new Article 12a does not have as its exclusive leitmotif a situation of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances as occurred during COVID-19. In situations of alteration of the price (Art. 10), alteration of other package travel contract terms (Art. 11), and termination of the package travel contract and the right of withdrawal before the start of the package (Art. 12), there is the so-called traveller’s right to a refund. The revision of NPTD consagrated the organiser’s right to offer the traveller the option to accept a voucher of a value at least equal to the refund amount to which the traveller is entitled. The organiser may offer the traveller a voucher instead of a refund, but the traveller is not obliged to accept it and retains the right to a refund within 14 days. It must have a value equal to or greater than the amount of the refund due and may be used, in whole or in part, for any travel service provided by the organiser. Voucher holders may not be treated less favourably than other customers. Before acceptance, the organiser must provide clear information, in a durable 18 CARLOS TORRES

tourismlaw.pt

Made with FlippingBook

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==