Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

1066 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE Belgium or Germany did. In this case, the question is whether the traveller may rely on such foreign advice or not 50 . The new Act also states in Article 7:509 DCC that the traveller can cancel at all times. He can be required to pay a suitable and justified termination fee (cancellation costs), but if unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances occur at the place of destination or in the immediate vicinity that have significant consequences for the implementation of the package, the trip can be terminated at no cost before its start. We do not expect that rulings will start to differ from previous ones and that a decision of the Calamiteitencommissie and the opinion of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs are and will continue to remain important to the question whether the traveller may cancel an agreement at no cost. Since the Ministry uses colour codes to indicate the situation in a country, the question is how, for example, code orange (severe safety risks that can result in dangerous situations for travellers based on which holidays are advised against) must be interpreted. In addition, there is the question of which costs a travel organiser may charge if the traveller terminates the agreement due to circumstances attributable to him. The new Act allows for various schemes. The organiser may charge reasonable standardised termination fees based on the moment of termination before the start of the package, and the expected costs savings and income from the alternative use of the travel services. If he fails to do so, the termination fee must correspond to the price of the package minus the cost savings and income from the alternative use of the travel services. We cannot see any major differences between these two options, and both the Explanatory Memorandum and the Directive fail to indicate whether there is a distinction (which should be the case). We wonder whether the last sentence of Article 12(1) of the Directive, which states that the organiser must substantiate the termination fee at the request of the traveller, only concerns the non-standardised termination fees, or the standardised fees as well. We believe that this sentence only concerns the non-standardised termination fees, but neither the Directive nor the Dutch Act provide any clarity on this matter. The benefit of standardised termination fees is that these can be based on the expected cost savings and income from the alternative use, while the organiser must always be able to specify which losses he 50 An example is a somewhat older ruling of the Court of Almelo of 27 June 2001 in the case of Witters versus Rottink Tourism, in which the court ruled that the travellers could not rely on publications of the BelgiumMinistry of Foreign Affairs and publications of the American embassy. In this case, the advice of the Dutch Ministry was used.