Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

NETHERLANDS | NICK DE LEEUW | JUDITH TERSTEEG | FRANK RADSTAKE 1051 The fact that the 14-day period does not apply to PTAs is highly beneficial to them. Article 13(1), second paragraph, of the Directive offers national legislators of EU member states the opportunity to also hold the possible retailer responsible for the implementation of a package, in addition to the (travel) organiser itself. The Netherlands has not made use of this option either. The Dutch legislator has explicitly chosen for legal certainty for the traveller by using only one liable party, which is the organiser 24 . Nor has the Dutch legislator made use of the opportunity of using an expiry period for the submission of claims pursuant to Title 7A which is longer than 2 years (Article 14(6) of the Directive). This is beneficial to organisers, even though 2 years is still a long time. After all, they often work with local (foreign) travel service providers and if something happens at the location, it will often be impossible to determine what has happened once 2 years have expired. 4. SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE 4.1. Scope: business and pleasure? The principle of the Directive, and, therefore, also of Dutch legislation, is that so-called business trips are also covered by the scope of the Act, unless there is a “general agreement” between the (professional) traveller and the trader. Small enterprises require similar protection as consumers, based on the Directive 25 . Arguments can be made in favour of this. The opted solution, where a general agreement (often called a framework agreement) has be used to keep business trips out of the scope of the Act, is not a very good one. A travel agency may even have an easier time having an SME (the local butcher) accept a general agreement than a multinational (like Philips or Unilever). Assuming that the SME concluded a general agreement in which the Act on Travel Agreements has been excluded, its business trips will not fall within the scope of the Directive and the Act. The multinational with considerable more economic power which rejects such general agreement does enjoy the full protection offered to consumers. It seems obvious to us that the SME should enjoy this protection, not the multinational. We believe that the distinction used in the Directive and the Act (the general agreement) to determine which professional traveller is offered 24 Parliamentary Papers II 2016/17, 34688,3, p.7. 25 Directive 2015/22302 recital 7.