THE ITALIAN INTERVENTION 201 3.1. The voucher before and after amendments The most debated issue, in the days preceding the amendments of Arts. 28 and 88 by Law of Conversion No. 27/2020, concerned the possibility for operators (and carriers), in the face of withdrawal or frustration of the contract, to issue vouchers as an alternative to a refund or an alternative package. The debate concerned the qualification of this obligation. For what packages are concerned, for some, in fact, the rule was to better protect the consumer/traveller, giving him a triple choice: money, alternative package or voucher. These are three possibilities which give the choice holder a decreasing margin of decision-making freedom, not without effects on his/her financial position. In case of reimbursement, the traveller, returning in possession of his own money, will see his situation reconstructed before the stipulation of the contract, and can, therefore, decide with the maximum degree of freedom in terms of choice: if and when to enter into a new travel contract. Completely opposed is the very unpractical hypothesis of supplying an alternative package, not only the traveller will not be in possession of his own money, but he will have to choose an alternative holiday to the one planned, at a time when his ability and aptitude for choice are certainly spoiled by the terrible circumstances that are being experienced. The hypothesis of the voucher thus represents the middle ground: the tour operator avoids an unsustainable outgoing of financial flows, and the traveller, at the same time, has one year (and not just a few days) to decide on the travel or the replacement holiday. Therefore, if the voucher, as the new tool available to operators, represents the way to balance the interests of the parties, especially if considered an emergency measure, it was presumable that the choice should have been up to the tour operator and not to the traveller. On the one hand, it is clear that if the choice were up to him, the traveller would most likely always opt for a refund, tipping the balance of interests. On the other hand, the reimbursement was already foreseen in the previous legislation, so it is not an emergency tool. It is therefore clear that the choice should be up to the tour operator and not to the traveller. A careful reading of the Article 28 paragraph 5 of Decree-Law No. 9, where it is stated that the operator can offer the traveller an alternative package of equivalent or higher quality; can proceed with the refund in the terms provided for in paragraphs 4 and 6 of Article 41, therefore, within 14 days of the request; or can issue a voucher, to be used within the year of its issue, for an amount equal to the reimbursement. The most plausible qualification, is that it is an
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==