Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 November 2025. – MS Amlin Insurance SE v (W)onderweg VZW.

1

The request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 3(6) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1).

2

The request has been made in proceedings between MS Amlin Insurance SE, an insurance company, and (W)onderweg VZW, a non-profit association which concluded, for its members, a package travel contract with a travel agency, insured by MS Amlin Insurance, concerning the refusal of MS Amlin Insurance SE to refund (W)onderweg, following the insolvency of that travel agency, the payments made under the travel contract.

3

The tenth recital of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59) provides as follows:

‘Whereas the consumer should have the benefit of the protection introduced by this Directive irrespective of whether he is a direct contracting party, a transferee or a member of a group on whose behalf another person has concluded a contract in respect of a package’.

4

Article 2(4) of that directive provides as follows:

‘For the purposes of this Directive:

…

5

Recitals 1 to 3, 7, 25 and 39 of Directive 2015/2302 are worded as follows:

…

…

…

6

Article 2 of Directive 2015/2302, headed ‘Scope’, provides:

‘1.   This Directive applies to packages offered for sale or sold by traders to travellers and to linked travel arrangements facilitated by traders for travellers.

2.   This Directive does not apply to:

3.   This Directive does not affect national general contract law such as the rules on the validity, formation or effect of a contract, in so far as general contract law aspects are not regulated in this Directive.’

7

Article 3 of that directive, entitled ‘Definitions’, provides, in paragraphs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 thereof:

‘For the purpose of this Directive, the following definitions apply:

1.   “travel service” means:

…

2.   “package” means a combination of at least two different types of travel services for the purpose of the same trip or holiday, if:

…

3.   “package travel contract” means a contract on the package as a whole …

…

6.   “traveller” means any person who is seeking to conclude a contract, or is entitled to travel on the basis of a contract concluded, within the scope of this Directive;

7.   “trader” means any natural person or any legal person, irrespective of whether privately or publicly owned, who is acting, including through any other person acting in his name or on his behalf, for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession in relation to contracts covered by this Directive, whether acting in the capacity of organiser, retailer, trader facilitating a linked travel arrangement or as a travel service provider;

8.   “organiser” means a trader who combines and sells or offers for sale packages …’

8

Article 4 of that directive, entitled ‘Level of harmonisation’, provides:

‘Unless otherwise provided for in this Directive, Member States shall not maintain or introduce, in their national law, provisions diverging from those laid down in this Directive, including more or less stringent provisions which would ensure a different level of traveller protection.’

9

Article 5 of Directive 2015/2302, entitled ‘Pre-contractual information’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘Member States shall ensure that, before the traveller is bound by any package travel contract or any corresponding offer, the organiser and, where the package is sold through a retailer, also the retailer shall provide the traveller with … the following information:

…’

10

Article 12 of Directive 2015/2302, headed ‘Termination of the package travel contract and the right of withdrawal before the start of the package’, provides, in paragraphs 2 and 4 thereof:

‘2.   … the traveller shall have the right to terminate the package travel contract before the start of the package without paying any termination fee in the event of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances occurring at the place of destination or its immediate vicinity and significantly affecting the performance of the package, or which significantly affect the carriage of passengers to the destination. In the event of termination of the package travel contract under this paragraph, the traveller shall be entitled to a full refund of any payments made for the package, but shall not be entitled to additional compensation.

…

4.   The organiser shall … reimburse any payments made by or on behalf of the traveller for the package minus the appropriate termination fee. …’

11

Article 17 of that directive, entitled ‘Effectiveness and scope of insolvency protection’, provides, in paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 thereof:

‘1.   Member States shall ensure that organisers established in their territory provide security for the refund of all payments made by or on behalf of travellers in so far as the relevant services are not performed as a consequence of the organiser’s insolvency. If the carriage of passengers is included in the package travel contract, organisers shall also provide security for the travellers’ repatriation. Continuation of the package may be offered.

…

3.   An organiser’s insolvency protection shall benefit travellers regardless of their place of residence, the place of departure or where the package is sold and irrespective of the Member State where the entity in charge of the insolvency protection is located.

…

5.   For travel services that have not been performed, refunds shall be provided without undue delay after the traveller’s request.’

12

Article 23 of that directive, entitled ‘Imperative nature of the Directive’, provides, in paragraph 2 thereof:

‘Travellers may not waive the rights conferred on them by the national measures transposing this Directive.’

13

In accordance with Article 2(6) of the Wet betreffende de verkoop van pakketreizen, gekoppelde reisarrangementen en reisdiensten (Law on the sale of package travel, linked travel arrangements and travel services) of 21 November 2017 (Belgisch Staatsblad, 1 December 2017, p. 106673) (‘the Law on package travel’), ‘traveller’ means any person seeking to conclude a contract falling within the scope of that law or having the right to travel on the basis of such a contract already concluded.

14

Under Article 4 of the Law on package travel, that law does not apply, first, to package travel and linked travel arrangements covering a period of less than 24 hours, unless overnight accommodation is included, second, to package travel offered and linked travel arrangements facilitated, occasionally and on a not-for-profit basis and only to a limited group of travellers, and, third, package travel, linked travel arrangements and travel services sold separately which are purchased under a general agreement concluded for the organisation of a business trip between a trader and another natural or legal person acting for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession.

15

Article 2(3) of the Koninklijk besluit betreffende de bescherming tegen insolventie bij de verkoop van pakketreizen, gekoppelde reisarrangementen en reisdiensten (Royal Decree on insolvency protection relating to the sale of package travel, linked travel arrangements and travel services) of 29 May 2018 (Belgisch Staatsblad, 11 June 2018, p. 48438) provides that, when applying that decree, ‘the beneficiary’ means any traveller, as referred to in Article 2(6) of the Law on package travel, in respect of whom the insurance services referred to in Chapter 4 of that decree are stipulated.

16

(W)onderweg is a non-profit association which works for the benefit of people with autistic spectrum disorders from low-income families.

17

On 18 January 2020, it concluded, for some of its members, a ‘citytrip’ contract to travel to Lyon (France), including train tickets and hotel accommodation. The journey was scheduled for the period from 21 to 24 April 2020. In respect of that package, (W)onderweg paid EUR 9 165.14.

18

On 16 March 2020, in view of the entry into force of the containment measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic, (W)onderweg requested the travel agency to postpone that trip to September 2020 for the same price and in the same hotel.

19

Since such a postponement proved to be impossible, (W)onderweg asked that travel agency whether it was possible to postpone the trip by one year, that is to say, until 20 April 2021. In that exchange, reference was also made to possibility of compensating (W)onderweg by means of a voucher, valid for one year, since, according to that agency, reimbursement of the payments made by (W)onderweg was, in principle, possible only after such a voucher had expired.

20

On 7 September 2020, (W)onderweg gave the travel agency formal notice to refund it the sum paid under the package travel contract.

21

That agency having been declared insolvent on 22 September 2020, (W)onderweg sent a refund request to MS Amlin Insurance, the insurance company which insured the risks associated with the insolvency of that agency.

22

After MS Amlin Insurance rejected that request, (W)onderweg brought an action before the rechtbank van eerste aanleg Antwerpen, afdeling Antwerpen (Antwerp Court of First Instance, Antwerp Section, Belgium) seeking to have that insurance company be ordered to refund it the price of the travel package on account of the failure to perform the travel contract.

23

That court dismissed the action on the ground that the trip had already been cancelled before the travel agency was declared insolvent.

24

Hearing the appeal brought by (W)onderweg, the hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Antwerp Court of Appeal, Belgium), ordered MS Amlin Insurance to pay EUR 9 165.14, plus interest and costs.

25

MS Amlin Insurance brought an appeal on a point of law before the Hof van Cassatie (Court of Cassation, Belgium), which is the referring court.

26

In that regard, MS Amlin Insurance submits that, contrary to the findings of the hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Antwerp Court of Appeal), (W)onderweg cannot be regarded as a traveller within the meaning of the national legislation implementing Directive 2015/2302, nor can it derive rights from that legislation. The concept of ‘traveller’ defined in that national legislation covers only the traveller as a natural person, that is to say, in the present case, the members of (W)onderweg for whom it purchased the trip and not (W)onderweg itself, which is a legal person.

27

The referring court states that it must therefore assess whether a legal person, such as a non-profit association, which purchases from a trader, occasionally, a package tour for its members may be regarded as a traveller within the meaning of Article 3(6) of Directive 2015/2302, the courts adjudicating on the substance having held that a legal person may indeed fall within that concept of a ‘traveller’.

28

In those circumstances, the Hof van Cassatie (Court of Cassation) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Is the concept of a “traveller” in Article 3(6) of Directive [2015/2302] [to] be interpreted as meaning that it also includes a legal person, such as a non-profit association which occasionally buys package travel from a trader for its members?’

29

As a preliminary point, it should be stated, first, that the question referred is based on the premiss that the travel contract at issue in the main proceedings relates to a package within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Directive 2015/2302, and therefore, in principle, falls within the scope of that directive as set out in Article 2(1) of that directive. In that regard, while the Belgian, Greek and Italian Governments and the European Commission, in their written observations, dealt with the question whether the exceptions to that scope laid down in Article 2(2) were relevant in order to rule it out, it is important to state that those exceptions are not the subject of the question referred, the referring court having moreover ruled out the application of the exception provided for by national law which transposes Article 2(2)(b) of that directive which relates, in particular, to packages offered ‘occasionally’, on a not-for-profit basis, to a limited group of travellers.

30

Second, it is apparent from the documents before the Court that, although (W)onderweg concluded the contract at issue in the main proceedings on behalf of its members, it did so in its own name, the dispute in the main proceedings concerning a right to a refund which that association itself claims to have, as a ‘traveller’ within the meaning of Article 3(6) of Directive 2015/2302, vis-à-vis MS Amlin Insurance under the national law implementing Article 17 of that directive, which is the provision relating to the protection of travellers against the risk of the insolvency of organisers, such as the travel agent at issue in the main proceedings, as regards, inter alia, the refund of payments made for a package where the services forming part of that package are not performed.

31

In those circumstances, it must be held that, by its single question, the referring court is, in essence, asking whether Article 3(6) of Directive 2015/2302 must be interpreted as meaning that a legal person such as a non-profit association, which has concluded a package travel contract with an organiser, in its own name but on behalf of some of its members, falls within the concept of ‘traveller’ within the meaning of that provision.

32

In accordance with settled case-law, when interpreting a provision of EU law it is necessary to take account not only of the wording of that provision, but also of its context, the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part and, where appropriate, of its origins. However, where the meaning of a provision of EU law is absolutely plain from its very wording, the Court cannot depart from that meaning (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 July 2024, HDI Global and MS Amlin Insurance, C‑771/22 and C‑45/23, EU:C:2024:644, paragraph 56 and the case-law cited).

33

In that regard, it should be recalled that, under Article 3(6) of Directive 2015/2302, the concept of a ‘traveller’ is defined as ‘any person who is seeking to conclude a contract, or is entitled to travel on the basis of a contract concluded, within the scope of this Directive’.

34

To the extent that that provision defines the concept of ‘traveller’ without making reference to national laws concerning the meaning to be given to that concept, that provision must therefore be regarded, for the purposes of the application of that directive, as containing an autonomous concept of EU law which must be interpreted in a uniform manner throughout the territory of the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 November 2016, Wathelet, C‑149/15, EU:C:2016:840, paragraph 29).

35

In addition, although the term ‘traveller’ is found in other acts of EU law, the particular definition thereof in Article 3(6) of Directive 2015/2302 is found only in that directive. Therefore, it is a concept which must be interpreted in the light of its particular function in the context of that directive and in the light of the aims of that directive (see, by analogy, judgment of 9 November 2016, Wathelet, C‑149/15, EU:C:2016:840, paragraph 30).

36

That said, it must be stated, in the first place, that the wording of Article 3(6) of Directive 2015/2302 makes reference, in order to define the concept of ‘traveller’, to ‘any person’ in either of the two situations referred to in paragraph 33 of the present judgment.

37

It must be stated that that wording makes no distinction between natural and legal persons, unlike, in particular, the definition of the concept of ‘trader’ in Article 3(7) of that directive under which ‘any natural or legal person’ may fall within that concept, and the definition generally adopted, in EU law, of the concept of ‘consumer’, that concept being, in principle, expressly limited to natural persons (see, to that effect, judgment of 2 April 2020, Condominio di Milano, via Meda, C‑329/19, EU:C:2020:263, paragraphs 24 and 25 and the case-law cited).

38

Furthermore, it is clear that, in order to fall within the concept of ‘traveller’ within the meaning of Article 3(6) of Directive 2015/2302, the person concerned must fall within one or other of the two categories referred to in that provision: that is to say, either to ‘[seek] to conclude a [package travel] contract’ or to ‘[be] entitled to travel’ on the basis of such a contract. While it is true that a legal person cannot travel on the basis of such a contract, a legal person may, by contrast, seek to conclude such a contract on behalf of one or more natural persons who will make the trip covered by that contract.

39

It follows that, although the wording of Article 3(6) of Directive 2015/2302 clearly lends itself to an interpretation which includes legal persons in the concept of ‘traveller’ within the meaning of that provision, that is to say when they ‘[seek] to conclude a [package travel] contract’, it does not automatically preclude a more restrictive interpretation, whereby that concept relates only to natural persons who are actually the only ones who are able to travel on the basis of such a contract.

40

It is therefore necessary, in the second place, to examine the context of Article 3(6) of Directive 2015/2302.

41

In that regard, it is apparent from recital 7 of that directive that that directive seeks to protect not only consumers, but also persons ‘who book trips related to their business or profession through the same booking channels as consumers’, since that category of persons may include ‘business travellers, including members of liberal professions, or self-employed or other natural persons’. Accordingly, ‘in order to avoid confusion with the definition of the term “consumer” used in other Union legislation’, the concept of ‘traveller’ was substituted for that of ‘consumer’, which appeared in Article 2(4) of Directive 90/314, that directive having been repealed and replaced by Directive 2015/2302.

42

However, that recital 7 is silent as to whether that substitution means that the concept of ‘traveller’ goes beyond natural persons who are not consumers, and also includes legal persons.

43

Similarly, a number of provisions of Directive 2015/2302 cover situations in which the traveller is regarded as a natural person. That is so, for example, in relation to Article 5(1)(a)(viii) of that directive, which concerns the obligation on the organiser to communicate to the traveller, before he or she is bound by a package travel contract, inter alia, precise information on the appropriateness of the trip ‘taking into account the traveller’s needs’, since recital 25 of that directive states in that regard that the trader must, in that context, ‘take into account the specific needs of travellers who are particularly vulnerable because of their age or physical infirmity, which the trader could reasonably foresee’.

44

It must be stated, however, that such elements of the context of Article 3(6) of Directive 2015/2302 merely confirm that it is clear that natural persons are likely to fall within the concept of ‘traveller’ within the meaning of that provision, in particular where they seek to conclude a package travel contract, without, however, excluding legal persons who are in the same situation.

45

Moreover, it may be inferred from Article 2(2)(c) of that directive – which excludes from the scope of that directive, inter alia, packages purchased on the basis of a general agreement for the arrangement of business travel between a trader and another natural ‘or legal’ person who is acting for business purposes – that packages purchased by legal persons are, in principle, included within that scope.

46

Such an interpretation is, in the third place, supported by the objectives of Directive 2015/2302, which, as is apparent from Article 1 of that directive, read in conjunction with recitals 1 to 3 thereof, consist in removing ambiguities, closing legislative gaps and adapting the scope of the protection conferred on travellers by Directive 90/314 in order to take account of market developments as well as to contribute to the attainment of a high level of consumer protection as required by Article 169 TFEU. Directive 2015/2302 thus contributes to ensuring a high level of consumer protection in EU package travel policy, in accordance with Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (judgment of 29 July 2024, HDI Global and MS Amlin Insurance, C‑771/22 and C‑45/23, EU:C:2024:644, paragraph 74).

47

In that regard, first, in the light of those objectives and of the fact that the rights conferred by Directive 2015/2302 are mandatory in nature, as is apparent from Article 23(2) of that directive, a broad interpretation of the concept of ‘traveller’, within the meaning of Article 3(6) of that directive, must be given preference in order to ensure the effectiveness of that directive (see, by analogy, judgment of 24 October 2024, Zabitoń, C‑347/23, EU:C:2024:919, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).

48

Second, an interpretation of the concept of ‘traveller’ within the meaning of Article 3(6) of Directive 2015/2302, which excluded a legal person seeking to conclude a package travel contract in its own name but on behalf of one or more natural persons, would necessarily lead to a weakening of the level of protection of those natural persons, who will often be consumers, compared with the situation where the status of ‘traveller’ is granted to the legal person concerned, particularly where that legal person is, as in the present case, a non-profit association acting for the benefit of some of its members who may be regarded as vulnerable persons.

49

In the first situation, while that legal person is, a priori, the only party contracting with the organiser in relation to the package travel contract concluded, that legal person cannot, since it cannot be regarded as a ‘traveller’, rely, in its own name but for the benefit of the natural persons on whose behalf that contract was concluded, on the rights which it could otherwise derive from Directive 2015/2302, including the right referred to in Article 17 of that directive. Those natural persons would then themselves, each as concerns himself or herself individually, have to assert their rights before the national courts, even though they are not a party to that contract.

50

While, in that context, it is indeed conceivable that those natural persons might, depending on the circumstances, authorise the legal person concerned to represent them in legal proceedings for that purpose, the need to take such steps would not make the exercise of the rights conferred by Directive 2015/2302 any less onerous and would therefore not be such as to contribute to the attainment of a high level of consumer protection, but rather would be such as to undermine such an objective.

51

Third, an interpretation of the concept of ‘traveller’ which did not include legal persons such as non-profit associations would similarly create a legal vacuum, in so far as a package travel contract would then exist, which had been validly concluded by a legal person, but in respect of which that legal person would be unable to exercise the rights associated with that contract as conferred by Directive 2015/2302. An interpretation of the concept of ‘traveller’ leading to that outcome would therefore be inconsistent with the objective referred to in paragraph 46 of the present judgment, which is, inter alia, to close legislative gaps.

52

In addition, fourth, as stated in paragraph 35 of the present judgment, account must be taken of the particular function of the concept of ‘traveller’ in the context of that directive.

53

As is also apparent from recital 7 of Directive 2015/2302, referred to in paragraph 41 of the present judgment, it appears that, where there is a package falling within the scope of that directive as defined in Article 2 thereof, the particular function of the concept of ‘traveller’ is not to exclude certain persons from the protection conferred by that directive on the basis of a functional criterion relating, inter alia, to the capacity in which they purchase that package or to their legal nature, but to define the persons who may rely on the rights granted by that directive solely on the basis of their connection with the contracts relating to such a package, that is to say either that they seek to conclude such contracts or that they are entitled to travel on the basis of contracts already concluded.

54

Therefore, the objectives pursued by Directive 2015/2302 and the particular function which the concept of ‘traveller’ within the meaning of Article 3(6) of that Directive fulfils in the context of that directive require an interpretation of that concept which also covers legal persons who seek to conclude, in their own name but on behalf of certain natural persons, a package travel contract falling within the scope of that directive.

55

Lastly, it must be stated, as the Commission did, that a person, whether natural or legal, who seeks to conclude a package travel contract and who must, on that basis, be regarded as a traveller within the meaning of Article 3(6) of Directive 2015/2302 retains that status when that person has concluded the contract. It cannot be accepted that a person seeking to conclude such a contract for the benefit of another person after the contract is concluded loses the status of ‘traveller’ on the sole ground that that person does not himself, herself or itself have the right to travel on the basis of that contract, if the protection which that directive is intended to confer on that person is not to be neutralised.

56

In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 3(6) of Directive 2015/2302 must be interpreted as meaning that a legal person such as a non-profit association, which has concluded a package travel contract with an organiser, in its own name but on behalf of some of its members, falls within the concept of ‘traveller’ within the meaning of that provision.

57

Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Tenth Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 3(6) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC

must be interpreted as meaning that a legal person such as a non-profit association, which has concluded a package travel contract with an organiser, in its own name but on behalf of some of its members, falls within the concept of ‘traveller’ within the meaning of that provision.