Illustrative photograph; not a location, property or incident discussed in this article. Photo: Mathias Reding / Pexels (Pexels License).
A missed call at Aruba or Curaçao can produce three conversations at once. Marine operations must decide where the ship can safely go. Guest services must explain what passengers will receive instead. Legal and finance teams must decide whether the change creates a right to cancel, a reduction in price or a refund in money.
Those are not interchangeable questions. A defensible navigational decision does not, by itself, answer the contractual remedies question. Nor does every disappointed passenger become entitled to the entire fare.
For cruise groups selling through several markets, the useful starting point is to separate the applicable legal regime from the operational response. Three Court of Justice of the European Union decisions provide a particularly clear framework for EU package-travel business involving Caribbean destinations.
Start with the booking, not the island
These judgments interpret Directive (EU) 2015/2302. They are not rulings that every cruise calling at a Dutch Caribbean port falls under EU package-travel law. Counsel must establish whether the booking qualifies as a package, identify its organiser, and determine which national implementing law and mandatory protections govern the transaction. The sales arrangements and relevant connecting factors matter; the destination alone does not settle the question.
Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten should not be treated as a single jurisdiction, or as interchangeable with the European Netherlands. Local port restrictions and the passenger’s contractual remedy may require advice under different legal systems. The analysis below concerns the EU package framework where applicable, not a statement of universal island refund law.
There is also a legislative transition to monitor. Directive (EU) 2026/1024 amends the package framework, with national transposition due by 29 September 2028 and application of those measures from 29 March 2029. Its adoption should not be confused with immediate application of every new rule to existing bookings. The decisions below address the earlier provisions. Amending directive, Article 3.
1. Before departure: assess the actual disruption, not only the travel advisory
In Tez Tour, C-299/22, 29 February 2024, a traveller sought to terminate a package to the United Arab Emirates in the early stages of COVID-19. The Court held that an official recommendation against travel was not a prerequisite for establishing unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances under Article 12(2). The assessment was not confined to situations making performance objectively impossible.
The inquiry remains objective and fact-specific. Significant effects are assessed prospectively at the termination date, from the perspective of a reasonably informed and careful average traveller. Relevant personal circumstances can affect the seriousness of the consequences; subjective fear alone does not suffice. A situation already known or foreseeable when booking cannot ordinarily be repackaged as a new extraordinary event, although significant subsequent changes can create a new situation. Judgment, paragraphs 27–83.
For a Caribbean itinerary, this suggests keeping a dated decision file: when the booking was made, when termination was requested, the restrictions then known, their expected duration, and the services actually affected. A later improvement or deterioration should not silently replace the evidence available at the relevant time. The absence of a government warning is not a complete response to a qualifying claim.
2. During the voyage: price reduction is not the same as damages
In FTI Touristik, C-396/21, 12 January 2023, travellers’ holiday in Gran Canaria was curtailed by pandemic restrictions. The Court explained that Article 14(1) price reduction turns on a comparison between the package services owed and those delivered. The organiser’s lack of fault, or the extraordinary character of the circumstances, does not itself defeat that remedy. Attribution of the non-conformity to the traveller is the stated exception.
That differs from compensation for damage, for which Article 14 provides separate defences. The Court also required an objective valuation: the affected services, the duration of the shortfall and the package’s value matter. Obligations are not limited to express wording; they include commitments arising from the contract’s purpose. Judgment, paragraphs 20–40.
For cruise counsel, the practical exercise is not to divide the fare mechanically by the number of ports. Preserve the advertised itinerary, incorporated descriptions, change notices, substitute arrangements and evidence of their value. Then identify the particular promise and any lack of conformity. Whether a substitution constitutes proper performance requires analysis; neither the original itinerary nor a general change clause should be read in isolation.
The later Tuleka judgment confirms an important qualification: even partial performance can justify a full price reduction where the shortfall is so serious that the package, assessed objectively in light of its purpose, is no longer of interest to the traveller. This is not a punitive award or an automatic consequence of one missed call. C-469/24, 23 October 2025, operative points 2–3.
3. Once a qualifying refund is due: a credit is not automatically money
In UFC – Que choisir and CLCV, C-407/21, 8 June 2023, the Court examined French emergency legislation permitting vouchers in place of immediate reimbursement. It held that the full refund required by Article 12(2) and (3) meant repayment in money. Under the provisions considered, qualifying refunds were due without undue delay and no later than 14 days after termination. The sector’s financial difficulties did not validate a general national suspension of that obligation.
The Court expressly preserved voluntary acceptance of a voucher. That distinction is essential: an attractive future-cruise credit may be offered, but it is not a substitute imposed unilaterally where the relevant monetary refund right applies. Judgment, paragraphs 18–35 and 58–76.
A sound response process therefore separates the legal entitlement from the commercial offer. State what refund is owed, record any genuine election of an alternative, and track payment against the applicable deadline. Do not let the accounting label “credit issued” close a file that still requires money to be returned.
One disruption file, separate decisions
A useful internal record has three distinct conclusions: the reason for the operational change; the legal classification of each passenger’s request; and the resulting payment or alternative arrangement. Each conclusion should identify its evidence and decision-maker.
Local teams can supply the port notice, restriction, timing and realistic alternatives. The relevant sales-market legal team can assess package rights and the organiser’s obligations. Finance can then implement the correct remedy rather than infer it from a generic disruption code.
That division of work makes communications clearer for passengers and more defensible for the business. It also preserves the central distinction these cases illustrate: protecting safety, evaluating performance and settling a refund are connected tasks, but they are not the same legal decision.
This article provides general information, not advice on a particular booking, itinerary or dispute.
For related services, see ZL Attorneys’ maritime law page. The applicable island law and local representation requirements must be assessed for each matter.
