Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

1052 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE protection by the Directive/Act is erroneous. It is also unclear what this “general agreement” should entail. The Dutch legislator does not impose any additional (formal) requirements for such general agreement. The Explanatory Memorandum states that professional travellers who make use of such general agreements do not require legal protection because “ such general agreement already offers sufficient protection to the traveller ”. The legislator does not indicate how. The Directive uses slightly different phrasing; the argument that the general agreement offers sufficient protection to the traveller is not present in the Directive. As a rule, the Netherlands has the freedom of contract. You may autonomously determine the contents of the contract within certain (broad) limits. 4.2. Definitions As usual, the scope of the Act is determined by the definitions set out in the Act. However, looking at the (difficult to read) definitions, we immediately encounter ambiguities which will not always make it easier for companies in the travel industry. What does this mean exactly? First of all, it is striking that the definition of “touristic” has not been specified. Even though a “touristic service” can also determine whether package travel exists. If the professional traveller (without a general agreement) concludes a travel agreement consisting of a flight and a meeting room for a convention in a hotel, is this meeting room a “any other touristic service?” 26 . The word “trader” (“ handelaar ”) also seems to be an umbrella term. This must be someone who is in the commercial trade concerning agreements covered by the Act, but it is odd that it is stipulated that it does not matter whether this trader is an organiser, retailer, facilitator of a linked travel package or a travel service provider. This last term, “travel service provider”, has not been set out in the definitions of the Directive and the Act. We believe that such “travel service provider” can and often will be a service provider offering “single travel services” (for example, who only lets accommodations or a rental car service). Such “single travel services” are not covered by the scope of this Act. It is unclear to us why this “travel service provider” is considered the trader (“ handelaar ”) here. 26 Also refer to Asser/Tjong Tjin Tai 7-IV number 480, in which he remarks that tourism seems to refer to entertainment, enjoyment or possible training and anything else than subjective utility is not covered by this.