Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

1008 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE 13-16 (especially articles 13 and 14). However, other remedies, e.g. the remedy in case of breach of the disclosure obligation, are not regulated by the Directive 47 . Therefore, it can be concluded that the regulation technique, used in the Civil Code, concerning the compensation of damage is harmonised with the provisions of the Directive. Secondly, the uncertainty creates Article 6.754/1 (1) of the Civil Code established that the tourist should be entitled to claim compensation for material and non-material damage in the cases as indicated in the article. There is ambiguity concerning the essence of the rule: whether this rule creates an obligation to the tourist to claim for the compensation for damage without unjustified delay or it lays down the rule that the tourist is entitled to claim that the travel organiser would compensate without unjustified delay. It seems that, in both ways, this regulation misleadingly transposes the provisions of the new Travel Directive. By other words, the Directive requires that the traveller informs the travel organiser without undue delay, taking into account the circumstances of the case, of any lack of conformity, which he perceives during the performance of a travel service included in the package travel contract 48 . As indicated in the preamble of the directive 49 , failure to do so may be taken into account when determining the appropriate price reduction or compensation for damages, where such notice would have avoided or reduced the damage. Therefore, there are close and direct links between the traveller’s obligation to inform the travel organiser and the travel organiser’s obligation to remedy the lack of conformity provisions of the Directive. Both parties must cooperate and act in the most efficient way, therefore, these provisions are logically related and create related consequences. However, it is not clear what kind of consequences will apply if the traveller breaches the obligation to claim for damage without undue delay. The first interpretation of Article 6.754/1 (1) of the Civil Code leads to the conclusion that the Lithuanian law introduces additional ungrounded burden for the consumer and this burden is not in line with the provisions of the Directive, taking into account the maximum harmonisation character of the Directive. Further, if reading the mentioned part of the article, in the second possible interpretation, it seems that the obligation of the travel organiser to pay 47 As set out in the article 2 (3) of the Directive, this directive does not affect national general contract law such as the rules on the validity, formation or effect of a contract, insofar as general contract law aspects are not regulated in this directive. 48 Article 13 (2) of the Travel Directive. 49 Paragraph 34 of the preamble of the Travel Directive.