Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

782 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE period not exceeding three nights per traveller, if it is impossible to ensure the traveller’s return as agreed because of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances, mainly considering Estonia’s geographical location. As for the passenger’s the time limit of transferring the package travel contract to another traveller, it has become clearer compared to previous regulation. No essential alterations to Estonian national law were entailed in the course of transposition of Directive as regards to price reduction or compensation for damages. 5. CONCLUSION Themain aimof this contributionwas todescribe techniques used in transposition, explain most important choices made by the Estonian legislature when discretion is granted and analyse some problems connected with the ‘translation’ of the directive into the Estonian legal system. The Estonian legislator tried to minimize the risk of infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU and follows for the most part the exact wording of the Directive. Technique called ‘copy out’ makes transposed law more visible 55 and it is easy to follow in which provisions already established terminology was kept and where new terms were used to guarantee coherence with the Directive and existing national legal system. At the same time, The Estonian legislator “translated” the directive into the customary language of the domestic legal system only in some cases 56 . Most important decisions made in the course of transposition of the directive were, firstly, the decision not to extend the consumer’s right of withdrawal from the off-premises contract within 14 days to package travel contracts. Secondly, it was decided not to adapt joint and several liability of the retailer for the performance of travel package contract (§ 866(4) LOA) except in situations where a tour operator is established outside the European Economic Area, unless the retailer provides evidence that the tour operator complies with the obligations provided in the law (§ 866(4 1 ) LOA). The third important decision was the decision to release retailers from the obligation to provide security except in cases where the tour operator is from a third country 57 . 55 See more in M.W. Hesselink. The ideal of codification and the dynamics of Europeanisation: The Dutch experience. European Law Journal 12, 2006, p. 300. 56 Mainly when the rule from the Directive has been already adapted into Estonian legal system in the form of general rules applicable to all contracts. 57 See also A. De Vries in Travel intermediaries and responsibility for compliance with EU travel law: a scattered legal picture. EuCML 119, 2016, p. 125.