Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

NETHERLANDS | NICK DE LEEUW | JUDITH TERSTEEG | FRANK RADSTAKE 1065 A case that was tried by the Court of Arnhem, concerned travellers who had booked a trip to Sri Lanka. On February 5 th (2008), the Ministry advised against all non-essential trips to the entirety of Sri Lanka. It advised against all trips to the northern and eastern parts of Sri Lanka. In addition, it advised against all trips using public transport, and recommended avoiding shopping malls and other areas with large numbers of people as much as possible. In a fax and letter of 5 February 2008, the travellers informed the travel organiser that they considered themselves forced to terminate the travel agreement with immediate effect in response to the recent events in Sri Lanka, specifically in response to the bombings that occurred a number of days earlier, and considering the travel advice of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They requested the travel organiser to refund the already paid travel fee in full. The organiser refused based on the argument that the Calamiteitenfonds had not issued any coverage limitations for Sri Lanka and that the trip of February 8 th would take place as scheduled. If the traveller still wanted to cancel the trip, the associated costs would be due. The travel organiser argued that the agreed bookings would only be able to be cancelled at no additional cost when the Calamiteitenfonds would publish on the existence of coverage limitations. The booking was cancelled, and the cancellation costs were charged. The Court qualified its ruling. Even though it considered the fact that the situation in Sri Lanka had been unstable for a number of years and multiple violent events had occurred throughout the years, and that the choice of the traveller to cancel the trip was, in principle, attributable to the traveller, this did not affect the circumstance that the travel advice issued by the Ministry showed increasing life-threatening violent events that were not limited to the northern and eastern areas of Sri Lanka, and that these events also targeted civilians and tourists. Since the safety risks in the areas that would be visited during the booked trip had increased significantly since the conclusion of the travel agreement, and a life-threatening situation has arisen in these areas that (also) concerned civilians and tourists, the court ruled that the traveller could not be blamed for termination of the agreement based on these facts pursuant to a decision made by him or an impedance suffered by him. In other words: the traveller had the right to cancel the travel agreement at no additional cost in this case. There are also examples in case law where the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not issue a negative advice, but neighbouring countries such as