Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

PORTUGAL | CARLOS TORRES 1115 text of the NPTD, it proved to be ineffective, generating enormous losses for German taxpayers. If a significant operator collapses, the insolvency protection system is inadequate, given that the public and mandatory guarantee fund (FGVT) has only approximately 6.5 million euros and the bankruptcy of a significant operator in peak season can represent about 50 million in losses. 11.3. Retailers (predominantly SMEs) are intentionally sacrificed, not only those who sell the packages of the insolvent operator, but even other companies registered with the RNAVT may have to contribute significant amounts, thanks to the obligatory solidarity mechanism in effect. From 2012 onwards, a high percentage of the guarantee fund was supported through contributions from SMEs, who proportionately paid to large organisations much more for every million euros billed. Upon entering the market, all companies, most of them SMEs, pay 2500 euros upfront, regardless of the volume of invoicing. 11.4. On the other hand, Portuguese law used a crude solution to eliminate the protection of professional travellers. The main objective is to not pay any additional contributions to the public guarantee fund (FGVT) – an unrealistic purpose seeing as the new European framework did not allow the maintenance of a maximum annual limit of 1 million euros in compensation to consumers (Art. 31/2 of the previous LAVT). The risk of the insolvency, which in some significant operators is between 30 and 50 million euros in turnover in high season, was completely ignored. The agreement between the association of travel agencies (APAVT) and the association of Portuguese consumers (DECO) also held the retailer responsible for the performance of the package (Art. 13/1 NPTD), with the scope to protect the guarantee fund, on the assumption that the retailers, as a general rule, SMEs can cope with the hefty costs of repatriations and refunds. However, in order not to affect the FGVT, it would also be necessary to remove the risks associated with professional travellers. As the general agreement for the arrangement of business travel excludes the application of the NPTD [Art. 2/2/(c)], the Portuguese legislator constructs a skilful definition. However, the expression “plurality of services” – two or three travel services are sufficient to fulfil the concept of plurality – is manifestly deceitful, aiming to exclude a large number of professional trips, the opposite of the European legislator’s purposes in recital 7 by mentioning the “ high number of services ”.