Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive
Antonia Paniza Fullana 1 1. Antecedents of the Directive 2015/2302 and Several Aspects in Relation to Liability; 2. The General Rule: Organiser Liability; A. Responsibility of the organiser for the performance of the travel package; B. Consequences of non-performance; 3. Retailer Liability in Case of Package Travel Contract; 4. Liability of the Trader Who Facilitates Linked Travel Arrangements. 1. ANTECEDENTS OF THE DIRECTIVE 2015/2302 AND SEVERAL ASPECTS IN RELATION TO LIABILITY After different texts having been drafted, a text was finally approved that can be said to redefine the liable subjects in package travel contracts and what were then assisted travel arrangements. One of the main aims of this text, as with that of the Proposal that was eventually approved, is the protection of consumers, informing them as to whether their travel is covered by the protection provided by the new regulatory text. Previously, some consumers believed themselves to be covered by the protection offered by the regulations on package travel when in fact they were not covered by it, leading to situations in which how the services were contracted could lead to variations in which liability regime applied. A clear example can be found in the actual text of the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions dated from 9 July 2013. It is as follows: “Thomas booked a flight to Thailand directly from the website of airline X. When booking, he was offered accommodation at a hotel. He purchased both services and paid an inclusive price on the airline’s website. His friend James had in the meantime bought accommodation at the same hotel and a flight with the same airline via a pre-arranged travel package offered by Leisure Group Y. While they were in Thailand, airline X went bankrupt and their return flight was cancelled. Thomas had then to make his own travel arrangements to get home, which cost him €700 on top of the cost for his original ticket. James, by contrast, was repatriated at no additional cost thanks to Y’s bankruptcy protection.With this proposal, Thomas would be repatriated at no additional cost – in exactly the same way as James” . 1 Senior University Lecturer in Civil Law. University of the Balearic Islands.