Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

1010 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE The moral damage limitation rule was the object of the interpretation in several cases. The Supreme Court of Lithuania has explained that this rule does not mean the standard value for compensation, it is just maximum compensation, and, therefore, the exact loss shall be proved by means of evidence established in the Civil Procedure Code 50 . Accordingly, the court had the right to award not all proved loss but only the maximum amount equal to three times the total price of the package. It is evident that the changes in the regulation will directly influence the court practice concerning the liability limitation of the travel organiser and the court will apply the limitation liability rule only in case it is indicated in the contract. 5. ISSUES RELATED TO PROTECTIVE MEASURES (INSOLVENCY PROTECTION) The initial draft of the Law on Tourism (transposing the provisions of the new Travel Directive), prepared by the Government, proposed to set out two types of models of insolvency protection: the fulfilment of the travel organiser’s obligations had to be secured through a valid suretyship insurance, taken out with an insurance company and/or a financial guarantee from a financial institution ( an insurance and financial guarantee model as the primary and the main model), and additionally by the traveller organisers’ contributions to the account of the traveller guarantee ( guarantee fund model as additional measure). As might be concluded from the travaux preparatoires of the initial draft 51 , the idea of the latter model reflected the idea of a specific guarantee fund. The manager of this account had to be the institution authorised by the Government. The obligation to pay fees to this account was suggested to impose to the travel organiser, which would have to pay an amount equal to 1 percent of each package travel trade price. This security measure would be only the supplement of the first model and would be used as a subsidiary, i.e. the money from this travel guarantee account would have to be used in case the first model did not ensure the refund of all money paid, required for the fulfilment of the obligations of the travel organiser towards the tourists. Travaux preparatoires of the initial draft indicated that the existing insolvency protection system does not fully guarantee 50 The ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, 10 December 2013, case No. 3K-3-659/2013. 51 The travaux preparatoire of the draft of the Law, amending the Lithuanian Law on Tourism, and amending Article 6.228/3, and section three of that chapter, of book six of the Civil Code and the Annex to the Code.