in difficulty. In such case, the latter may contact the organiser through the intermediary. The intention of the Proposal is to strengthen the protection of the traveller, with an aggravation of the position of the organiser, who could be warned by the intermediary with delay; the late intervention of the former could generate an innocent liability. Finally, the Proposal suggests the introduction of a further paragraph, the second bis, which would specify that the information form in Annex 1 of the Directive should be attached to the negotiation text, so that it can be permanently available to the traveller. IV. THE PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE REGULATION ON THE TERMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BEFORE DEPARTURE DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE AND EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE PROPOSAL TO REGULATE SO-CALLED VOUCHERS According to Article 12(2) of Directive 2015 / 2302 / EU, the tourist may terminate the relationship before the start of the holiday if unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances occur at the place of destination or in its immediate vicinity. The impediment must be such that it substantially jeopardises the holiday. In this case, the tourist may request the return of payments made and the refund must be made without undue delay and, in any case, no later than fourteen days after termination. According to Article 3(12) of the Directive, the concept of “unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances” includes “a situation beyond the control of the party who invokes such a situation and the consequences of which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken”. The definition describes the character of inevitability (A. Pepe 2017, 254 ff.), but does not set any criteria for determining what is the extraordinary (M. Wukoshitz 2020, 183 ff.). The Proposal retains the notion of “unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances”, but extends its scope with reference to the place of departure or residence of the traveller. It is unclear why an unavoidable and extraordinary event could not be relevant for the purposes of Article 12(2) if it occurs at the place of departure (C. Camacho Pereira 2016, 72 ff.); this inconsistency emerged during the epidemic. The Proposal requires that the impediment affects the journey “significantly” and, like Directive 2015 / 2302 / EU, does not clarify whether the substantial character is to be understood in objective or subjective terms, i. e. whether the holiday is to be significantly impaired by extraordinary events affecting 10 CHIARA TINCANI
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==