Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

LITHUANIA | DANGUOLĖ BUBLIENĖ AND IEVA NAVICKAITĖ-SAKALAUSKIENĖ 1009 compensation without undue delay would raise only in case the tourist ask to pay compensation without undue delay (express his will for such undue delay). That is not the idea of the Directive. The Directive lays down the requirement that compensation must be made without undue delay. That means the statutory obligation of the travel organiser. The fulfilment of this obligation does not depend on the traveller’s will to pay the compensation without undue delay. It can be concluded that the Article 6.754/1 (1) of the Civil Code creates uncertainty concerning the rights and obligations of the parties; such uncertainty might complicate the application of tourist rights in practice. Thirdly, the issue concerning the limitation of liability shall be discussed. Article 14 (2) of the Directive establishes that “in other cases, the package travel contract may limit compensation to be paid by the organiser as long as that limitation does not apply to personal injury or damage caused intentionally or with negligence and does not amount to less than three times the total price of the package” . This provision of the Directive allows concluding that the EU MS may lay down the rule that the limitation liability clause might be indicated in the package travel contract only under the conditions established in the Directive. This rule was transposed into the Article 6.755 (1) of the Civil Code, which establishes “if the damages suffered by the tourist, excluding those arising from death or personal injury, as well as wilful damage or damages caused by major negligence, are caused by the provision of a service included in the package travel contract, but this service is not provided by the tour organiser himself, the tour organiser’s responsibility for those damages may be limited to three times the price of the package tour” . Therefore, it is clear that the law justifies the limitation of liability only in respect of the services included in the travel package provided by the third parties, but not to the travel organiser itself. Indeed, the provision of the Directive is broader and allows limiting compensation also for the services provided by the travel organiser itself. It is not clear whether the Article 14 (2) of the Directive is of maximum harmonisation, if it is the case, it is the basis to argue that the provisions of the Directive were not implemented in correct manner since the content of the right of the travel organisers under the Civil Code is narrowed compared to the Travel Directive. Moreover, it should be noted that until the implementation of the Travel Directive, theCivil Code established statutory limitation rule of the compensation concerning the moral damage. The moral damage’s compensation, in case of improper fulfilment of the obligations of the travel organiser, was limited to three times the price of the package tour. Therefore, it is obvious that after the transposition of the Travel Directive, the statutory limitation rule was annulled.