Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

ARTICLE 1 | JOSÉ ÁNGEL TORRES LANA 89 new text is technically superior. It is imperfect, getting some things right and other things wrong, and all this will be analysed in full detail in the corresponding comments. 2. Following this brief introduction, I start my commentary at art. 1. In this regard, I must say first of all that its title, ‘subject matter’, is somewhat misleading. In truth, the title ought to be ‘purpose’ or ‘aim’ – which is not the same thing – because this is really what the article is referring to. It is a true statement of intent. In effect, the article expresses a series of goals that are the subject-matter of more specific regulation in the following articles, especially from art. 5 onwards. As such, it may be pointed out that the goal of Directive 2015/2302 shows more ambition than its predecessor. The old Directive sought nothing more than the harmonization of the legislative provisions across member states, while the present Directive aims to achieve other additional objectives, as we shall analyse soon. 3. Art. 1 states the dual aim of the Directive: firstly, to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market and, secondly, to achieve a high level of consumer protection, which should be as uniform as possible. Two points need to be made regarding this dual and general objective. The first is that the reference to the internal market should be understood as a reference, quite logically, to the European Union, and not to each member state; usually where there is a reference to the member states, they are cited in that manner. The second, the rather surprising expression ‘high level of consumer protection’. The absence of comparative elements may give the impression that, either consumers were not protected or the level of their protection was very low. The first paragraph of the recitals of the Directive establishes that this is not the case, given that it expressly acknowledges the increase in the number of consumer rights with regard to package travel. However, the text of art. 1 would have been more effective if it had included the following comparative term: ‘higher’. 4. The typical mechanism to achieve a uniform legal system across different states is the approximation of their legal frameworks or regulations. This is expressly stated at the end of the article being examined, where it refers to a dual scope of application: in accordance with the class and category of the rules that are to be harmonized and in accordance with their aim.