Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

154 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE rules, whether the new rules can be avoided, whether the new rules comply with general principles of EU law. It will also consider briefly the practical implications of the extended security obligation for travel websites, administrative regimes and for Ireland in adapting to the new rules. The headings used are: 1. Introduction 2. Brief history/policy drivers 3. Airlines outside the security obligation 4. Closer look at linked travel arrangements 5. Compliance with general principles of EU law 6. Websites – organiser or facilitator or neither? 7. Closer look at the new insolvency regime 8. Implications for Ireland 9. Conclusion The insolvency protection rules under the new Directive are limited to one form of insolvency loss – consumer loss. Other losses, such as creditor/ shareholder/public authority loss are not considered. Further, not all consumer loss is protected by the rules under discussion – only loss involving repatriation and/or a refund of money paid for booked service not provided, or if possible a continuation of the package. Other anticipatory and consequential consumer loss, such as costs incurred in travelling to the place of departure, purchases made in preparation for the specific type of holiday, stress and frustration and loss of holiday enjoyment, are not dealt with by the insolvency rules in the new Directive. These losses remain subject to general insolvency rules under company law and are not discussed. The focus here is on a narrow but important range of consumer loss arising from travel trader insolvency. 2. BRIEF HISTORY/POLICY DRIVERS Some EU Member States [MS] introduced special insolvency protection rules for consumers of package holidays before the EU did in the 1990 Directive. They did so because of the significant risk of package organiser collapse while consumers were abroad and the need to repatriate them. The rules also covered refunding consumers who hadn’t yet travelled. It was perhaps questionable whether refunds of payments not connected with repatriation should have been