Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

NETHERLANDS | NICK DE LEEUW | JUDITH TERSTEEG | FRANK RADSTAKE 1057 However, if we compare Article 7:510(8) DCC to the original English text of the Directive, we read something different. Article 13(6) of the English text of the Directive reads “ price reduction and/or compensation for damages” for option 2 set out above. If we look at the Dutch translation of the Directive, we read: “prijsverlaging en een schadevergoeding” (price reduction and compensation for damages ). For option 3 mentioned above (no alternative arrangements or alternative rejected), the English text of the Directive uses the words “ price reduction and/or compensation for damages ” (Article 13(6) DCC). However, the Dutch translation of the Directive only states “prijsverlaging of een schadevergoeding” (“ price reduction or compensation for damages ”). Considering these, at the very least, remarkable differences between the English text of the Directive on the one hand, and the Dutch text of the Directive and the Dutch Act on the other hand, the question is whether this was deliberate. We assume that this was not the case, as the explanatory documents do not contain any reference to this. We believe it concerns a mistake. Apparently, the Dutch translation of the Directive contains an error in this respect. The Dutch Act was subsequently based on the Dutch text of the Directive and contains the same error. We believe that the traveller is entitled to a price reduction and/or compensation for damages for both option 2 and 3. In other words: a traveller may be entitled to just a price reduction or just compensation for damages, but also both simultaneously. This is currently not the case pursuant to the Dutch Act. In the context of this publication, we have only compared the English text of the Directive to the Dutch Translation and the Dutch Act, but more interesting differences may be found in other translations (e.g. into German or into French). It certainly does not benefit the legal certainty and the intended uniformity between the different Member States if a simple translation error can have consequences for both the traveller and the travel organiser. The Act allows the organiser to limit his liability to three times the travel fee, provided that the damage does not concern personal injury of the traveller or was caused by deliberate or negligent acts of the organiser. The liability of the organiser is also mitigated if there is a treaty which limits the liability of the organiser and the travel service providers used by him. It is odd that the new Act (and the Directive) no longer refer to immaterial damage (loss of travel enjoyment). This was explicitly referred to in the old Act, and was limited to one instance of the travel fee. This means that, for example, Tjong Tjin Tai in his