The Legal Impacts of COVID-19 in the Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Industry

However, the situation regarding the refunds and the 14-day timeframe evolved in various directions, in different Member States, as it became evident to many that this timeframe was impractical. This brought about amendments in various national laws, so that was provided flexibility in the applicability of the Travel Package Directive. While some EU Member States provided for a voucher system, wherein instead of applying the relative provision of the PTD, and thus obliging organisers to provide a refund, a voucher would be given to the traveller to be used within a stipulated time. Some Member States also provided that should the traveller not resort to use the voucher within the stipulated time, the refund would then be possible. This was beneficial for organisers, as it meant lifting a heavy burden that was imposed by the Package Travel Directive. 3. To what extent the Maltese law, transposing the Package Travel Directive, was amended in Malta to assist organisers during COVID-19? However, Malta did not follow suit in providing for vouchers, instead, providing for an extension of the 14-day limit. Such amendment was brought about by Legal Notice No. 80 of 2020, entitled ‘Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements (Amendment) Regulations’, wherein a provision was added to Regulation 11(4. Therefore, the 14-day deadline, set out within which the organiser has to refund the traveller, shall not apply to any refund required as a result of the termination of package travels, when such termination occurs between the 1 st March 2020 and 31 st May 2020 Consequently, the refund shall be paid by the organiser to the traveller by no later than 6 months after the package travel contract is terminated. Although the extension of the period from 14 days to 6 months was a step in the right direction to assist organisers in the COVID-19 situation, it is questionable as to why the legislator did not provide for the voucher structure. This would have been the ideal solution for the traveller, who would be able to travel when the situation would be better, as well as for the organiser, who would not have to pay the traveller. As a result, it could lead to a situation in which the organiser has to refund to the traveller from his own pocket, should the third parties to whom the amounts would have already been paid to (such as hotels and airlines), refuse to refund the amounts to the organiser. This is more so since the Directive does not regulate business to business relationships, and thus, it does not impose the same obligation on such third parties to refund the organiser. Moreover, the amended Maltese legislation provides for the termination of the packages occurring between the beginning of March and end of May 2020. Should the situation continue, it is noteworthy that this timeframe would have to be extended.