INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM, TRAVEL AND HOSPITALITY LAW In Sweden, as in most other countries, the National Board for Consumer Complaints (ARN) received many complaints where the traveler claimed reimbursement of the total price paid for a package that had been cancelled due to the pandemic. In June 2020, ARN tried a few selected pilot cases. In these cases, the board consisted of three judges together with two represents from the industry and two representatives from the consumer agency. In the decisions ARN laid down the principles on how the cases should be tried. 1.2.1 Burden of proof ARN stated that the burden of proof, in cases where the package had been cancelled by the traveler, rests with the traveler. The traveler thus shall prove that there were UEC at the destination and that the circumstances significantly affected the destination or the transport to the destination. The industry initially claimed that, for a traveler to have the right to cancel a trip without cancellation fee, there had to be a negative travel advice from the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Even if there was a negative travel advice, the traveler also had to show that the travel advice would be affecting the destination at the time on which the trip was scheduled to take place. In this regard ARN noted that neither the PTA, nor the PTD included a reference to travel advices from the government. Therefore, ARN stated that even if there is not a negative travel advice, the traveler may refer to other sources to prove that the situation at the destination is of such character that it must be considered to exist an UEC. As a result hereof, ARN has accepted articles from Swedish and foreign newspapers as proof of the situation at the destination. Further, ARN has accepted statements and recommendations from authorities in Sweden and at the destination, that has been referred to by travelers. For example, in one case ARN based its decision on, among other things, a recommendation from the US Foreign Ministry against travel for American citizens to the destination in question, which was referred to by a Swedish consumer. ARN further noted that, in line with the normal principles for the burden of proof in litigation, if a party claims a fact and the other party does not contest this fact, the first party does not have to prove it. Thus, if a traveler, uncontested, claims that there was a major spread of Covid 19 at the destination, ARN has considered it to be a fact in the case, without any further proof. A number of claims by travelers has therefore been approved by ARN, without any actual proof for UEC at the destination.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==