A volcanic ash cloud grounds flights across northern Europe. An operator cancels 200 packages and emails every customer: "Force majeure. No refund, no compensation." Within three weeks, the operator faces 200 complaints, regulatory scrutiny from the national enforcement body, and a group litigation threat. The ash cloud was force majeure. The response was not compliant.
The problem
Articles 12 through 14 of the Package Travel Directive (EU 2015/2302) set out the framework for unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances. Article 12(2) allows the traveller to terminate the contract without penalty when such circumstances significantly affect the package. Article 14(3) limits the organiser's liability for damages where the failure is attributable to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances. But these provisions do not operate as a blanket exemption. The CJEU ruling in Case C-578/19 (Austrian Airlines) clarified that the concept of extraordinary circumstances must be interpreted restrictively and does not relieve the organiser of obligations that exist independently of fault. The directive explicitly preserves the organiser's duty to provide appropriate assistance under Article 16, including practical information, communication assistance, and help with alternative arrangements. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, enforcement bodies across Europe took action against operators who treated force majeure as a total exemption. The European Commission's 2020 guidance specifically noted that the right to a refund under Article 12(4) is not affected by the extraordinary nature of the circumstances causing the cancellation.
What force majeure actually covers under the PTD
The directive uses the term "unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances" rather than "force majeure," though the concepts overlap significantly. The protection it offers operators is specific and limited. When such circumstances occur at the destination or in its immediate vicinity, the traveller may terminate without paying a termination fee, and the organiser must provide a full refund within 14 days. The organiser is also relieved of the obligation to pay additional compensation for damages. That is the extent of the protection. It removes two financial obligations: termination fees charged to the traveller and damage-based compensation. It does not remove the refund obligation, the duty to assist, or the requirement to offer alternative arrangements where possible. The CJEU has been consistent in interpreting these obligations as distinct from the compensation question.
The obligations that survive force majeure
Three categories of obligation remain fully in force during extraordinary circumstances. First, under Article 12(4), the organiser must refund all payments made within 14 days of contract termination. During COVID-19, many operators offered vouchers instead of cash refunds, leading to enforcement actions across multiple EU member states. The European Commission confirmed that vouchers may only be offered as an option, never imposed. Second, Article 16 requires the organiser to provide appropriate assistance to travellers in difficulty, including help with health services, local authorities, and consular assistance, as well as practical arrangements such as accommodation and transport. Third, where possible, the organiser should offer alternative arrangements of equivalent or higher quality. If the alternative is of lower quality, an appropriate price reduction applies.
Preparing for force majeure events properly
Operators who handle extraordinary circumstances well share three characteristics. They have pre-drafted communication templates that accurately describe the traveller's rights, rather than generic "force majeure" notices. They have a clear internal process for processing refunds within the 14-day statutory window. And they maintain relationships with alternative suppliers in key destinations, enabling them to offer substitutions rather than cancellations wherever possible.
What to do now
Force majeure under the PTD is a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. It removes the compensation obligation and the traveller's termination fee, nothing more. Refunds, assistance, and alternative arrangements all remain the organiser's responsibility. Operators who misapply force majeure as a blanket exemption face regulatory action, reputational damage, and litigation costs that far exceed the cost of compliant handling. Getting this right requires preparation before the event, not legal interpretation during the crisis.