Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

524 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE limits itself to only setting non-exhaustive criteria that should be taken into account in the application of specific penalties. For these other infringements, the proposal does not harmonise such penalties and it even makes it clear that these criteria do not necessarily apply to minor infringements . 3. THE ITALIAN IMPLEMENTATION OF ART. 25 Art. 25, as well as the whole directive, have been implemented in Italy by Legislative decree n. 62, 21 May, 2018. For the Italian legislator, the provision of administrative sanctions for the violation of rules in the field of travel contracts, is a complete novelty. As a matter of fact, neither the Directive 90/314, nor D. lgs. 111/95, ever included such an issue not even in their subsequent amendments 11 . And, to this extent, the new Directive certainly represents a step forward towards a stronger and more harmonized protection for the traveller. Particularly, art. 25 has been transposed into section IX, articles from 51- septies to art. 51 novies , which provides for a system of sanctions which ought to be punctual and complete, with respect to the concepts of effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness indicated by the Directive. As to art. 51-septies, it contains the provision of administrative monetary penalties together with additional sanctions, such as the suspension or ceasing of the activity for the professional, in case of violation of the insurance obligation. More stringent sanctions are indicated in case of repetition of the same infringement. Pecuniary penalties vary from a minimum of 1.000 euros to a maximum of 20.000 euros. However, nothing in art 51 septies is contained as to the criteria that should be followed in order to determine whether the penalty should be applied in its minimum or not. Moreover, the law provision at hand does not indicate which type of violation is capable of triggering the application of the penalty, nor we find any indication as to whether negligence or willful violations should imply different penalty. The lack of any criteria, might have a deep impact as to the concept of proportionality, dissuasiveness and even 11 De Cristofaro, Foro competente [art. 66-bis Codice del consumo] (Jurisdiction [art. 66-bis Consumer Code), in G. D’Amico (edited by ), La riforma del codice del consumo. Commentario al D.Lgs n. 21/2014 (The reform of the consumer code. Commentary on Legislative Decree n. 21/2014), Milano-Padova, 2015, 2nd ed, p. 370 ss.; Gioia , Sub art. 66 bis cod. cons ., in V. Cuffaro (edited by), Codice del consumo (Consumer code), Milano, 2015, 4th ed., p. 511.