Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

LITHUANIA | DANGUOLĖ BUBLIENĖ AND IEVA NAVICKAITĖ-SAKALAUSKIENĖ 1011 all payments, in case of insolvency of the travel organiser; there is a lack of approximately 3.5 million euros, which are not secured by the first insolvency protection model. Therefore, there was the suggestion of an additional mechanism. However, the draft proposed by the Government was redrafted in the Parliament, and the new draft did not retain the provisions on the second insolvency protection model. Finally, the adopted law establishes only one security model – an insurance and financial guarantee model. Indeed, there are no clear reasons why the additional security mechanism was reconsidered and deleted from the draft of the Law on Tourism. The main rules of an insurance and a financial guarantee model are established in the Law on Tourism itself – the Government decision regulates the rules on the calculation of the minimum amount of the security for the safeguarding of the fulfilment of the travel organiser’s obligations, the rules related to the adjustment of the amount and the coverage of the security, the other (especially procedural requirements). According to the publicly available information 52 , the amount of the security of the main players of the travel market in Lithuania are: UAB Novaturas – 7.450.000,00 €; UAB Tez Tour – 10.000.000,00 €; UAB ITAKA Lietuva – 3.00000,000 €. It is worth noting that 66 cases in the period 2017-2019, concerning the liability of the state for inappropriate implementation of the Travel Directive were on the tables of the judges of the administrative court. This number of cases is speaking for itself, especially taking into account that 60 cases were related to the same travel organiser. The first court judgment where state liability for the inappropriate implementation of the Travel Directive was stated was adopted in 2017 53 . The travel organiser “Freshtravel” was insured in its activity for the amount of 202.734,00 €. As indicated by the state institution responsible for the supervision of the activity of travel organisers, this amount much more (three times) exceeded the sum required by the Law on Tourism. The tourists suffered loss because of the insolvency of this company, which amounted to 734.090,00 €. The court indicated that the tourist who was the claimant in the examined case was compensated only by 4,96 percent of the loss suffered. The court concluded that the travel organiser performed all obligations prescribed by the law, however, the law itself did not establish the right compensatory system required by the provisions of the Directive. Consequently, the Supreme 52 Available at http://vvtat.lt/data/public/uploads/2019/10/d1_ko_sarasas.pdf. 53 The ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court, 8 May 2017, case No- eA-990-502/2017.