Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

SLOVENIA | MATIJA DAMJAN AND KARMEN LUTMAN 1163 protection and its contact details, including its geographical address, and, where applicable, the name of the competent authority designated by the Member State concerned for that purpose and its contact details” 27 . In Slovenia the national provision does not require the inclusion of the information about the competent authority concerned for the purpose of insolvency protection 28 . There are no further clarifications for this in the explanatory note to the latest amendments to the Consumer Protection Act, but we can speculate that the reason for this omission is the fact that insolvency protection mechanisms as foreseen in Slovenian law do not directly involve any public authorities, whereas the ministry responsibly for tourism is only designated as a central contact points to facilitate the administrative cooperation and supervision of organisers of security providers 29 . Striving to ensure clear and correct information for the travellers before they purchase a package or linked travel arrangement 30 , the Directive imposes an obligation on the organisers to provide the travellers with all relevant information about the package or linked travel arrangement and their key rights through standardised information forms set out in the annexes of the Directive. These forms were transposed into Slovenian law through the Rules on information forms for package travel contracts and linked travel arrangements, which reproduce literally the forms contained in the annexes to the Directive. 3.3. Changes to the Package Travel Contract Before the Start of the Package Concerning the changes of package travel contract before the start of the package, there are no inconsistencies between the wording of the Directive and the Consumer Protection Act. It should be mentioned, however, that the national legislature used the opportunity given by the Directive to determine the consequences of the traveller’s failure to respond to the organiser’s proposal to change the main characteristics of travel services or to increase the price of the package 31 . Thus, if the consumer does not reply to such proposal within a reasonable period of time, determined by the organiser, he is deemed to be 27 Article 7(2) c) of the Directive. 28 Article 57.č(4) Nr. 4 of the Consumer Protection Act. 29 Article 58.b(4) of the Consumer Protection Act. 30 Already before the transposition of the Directive into Slovenian law, the Supreme Court of Slovenia held that special benefits offered in the catalogues should be presented to consumer in a transparent way, so that he can gain a clear information about their content after his first reading (Judgement of the Supreme Court of Slovenia, Nr. II U 313/2009 of 11 May 2011). 31 Article 11(2) of the Directive.