Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

1012 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE Administrative Court stated the liability of the state. The two other cases will be mentioned as well. One case was related to travel organiser “Voyage-Voyage” 54 , according to the facts of this case, the Tourism Department received 95 claims for damages from tourists based on 97 tourism service contracts. The sum of the tourists’ losses amounted to 245.887,66 €. Ltd. “Voyage- -Voyage” had insurance of the performance of its obligations, covering the sum of 91.372,70 €. Accordingly, the amount of compensation, paid per tourist, in percent was 37,1603 %. In another case 55 , related to the compensation of damages, suffered due to the insolvency of the travel organiser Ltd. “Go Travel Planet“, the TourismDepartment received 822 claims for damages from tourists, based on 839 tourism service contracts. After analysing the claims received, the Tourism Department transmitted claims to insurance companies based on 817 contracts. The amount of insurance premiums which was proportionally distributed to the tourists was around 167.849,00 €, while the total amount of tourists’ losses, a compensation for which has been sought from the Tourism Department, amounted up to 519.055,00 €. Despite the fact that the requirements of an insurance and financial guarantee model were clarified, taking into account the prognosis mentioned in travaux preparatoires and the experience with the insolvency of travel organiser “Freshtravel” (especially taking into account the fact that obligations of “Freshtravel” were secured by the sum exceeded three times than required by the law) and other two organisers, there are reasonable doubts whether the Law on Tourism establishes adequate, reliable and effective insolvency protection system for tourists. Furthermore, it is obvious that at least in several situations an insurance and financial guarantee model could not be applied. Firstly, in the situation where the travel organiser does not fulfil the obligation to secure his obligations. That was the case in the court practice 56 . Secondly, considering the modification of the package travel definition and inclusion of the linked travel arrangements into the scope of the Directive, practically, there might be even more situations where the agreement would be treated as travel package agreement or services as the linked travel arrangements where there is no 54 The ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court, 10 October 2018, administrative case No. eA-1603- 502/2018. 55 The ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court, 12 June 2017, administrative case No. eA-872-556/2017. 56 The ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court, 6 February 2018, administrative case No. A-254-525/2018. Despite the fact that state liability was not stated in this case, and such a situation should be in mind considering the insolvency protection system.