Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

PORTUGAL | CARLOS TORRES 1097 fifteen plenary meetings have elapsed” (Article 169/5) and enjoys priority ( ibidem, 6). There is a strong tradition of the process of consideration of executive laws regarding travel agency laws, which are invariably required by the opposition political parties. In other words, nothing prevents the party or political parties that support the Government from doing so. It is for purely political reasons that the opposition parties subscribe to the respective request and defend points of view that diverge from the rules approved by the Government. In contrast, the Members of the Parliament belonging to the political parties that support the executive will assert their positions. The Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) intervened in all of them, being joined in others by the Social Democratic Party (PSD) and the Socialist Party (PS), in periods when they were in the opposition. In most situations they’ve defended points of view closely aligned with APAVT, the only and quite influential association of Portuguese travel agents and tour operators, offering, however, different points of view in the last two points. Being strongly connected with the legislative initiative, I tried to raise awareness among different political parties and business organisations, including the most significant national hotel group. The fact that the sector’s press did not even publicise the legislative initiative contributed to a barrier of silence around the problem. Therefore, we’ve lost an excellent opportunity to discuss some of the most problematic solutions, such as insufficient protection for travellers upon the insolvency of large tour operators, the responsibility of the retailers imposed by Portuguese law, or the scope of transposition. Naturally, it will be possible in the future to revert some aspects. At the national level (through the Government or Parliament) and, above all, at the European level, namely through the Commission or following the intervention of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the context of prejudicial questions. The concealment strategy triumphed at the expense of the information dissemination strategy – the legislative initiative was not the subject of a single reference in the media sector – and the combativeness of the main entities affected was not the best, getting lost in unassertive opinions, serving as an example of the hospitality industry. Correspondingly, there were not active persuasive efforts by the different parliamentary groups.