Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

174 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE Directive no actual pre-insolvency role was imposed on MS 46 . All that was required was that an organiser had security in place when the need for it arose. Central contact points and the mutual recognition of security The second change which requires a new role for MS public bodies is “to designate central contact points to facilitate the administrative cooperation and supervision of organisers operating in different Member States.” 47 . This change arises from concerns noted earlier that MS faced difficulties in verifying the security offered by organisers established in another MS and selling cross–border. This may have been accentuated by the lack of a regulator in some MS who could be contacted to seek satisfactory verification of the security offered. It appeared some MS authorities may in the past have encouraged/required out-of- -state organiser to take out security in thatMS. In effect, possibly refusing to recognise the adequacy of the security offered in the other MS. Thus, Article 18 [1] states: “Member States shall recognise as meeting the requirements of their national measures transposing Article 17 any insolvency protection an organiser provides under such measures of that Member State of his establishment.” 48 . This envisages more frequent communications between regulators in the different MS. Thus to facilitate that, Article 18 [3] imposes an obligation on central contact points: “to make available to each other all necessary information on their national insolvency protection requirements and the identity of the entity or entities in charge of the insolvency protection … in their territory.”. This is general information which should already be available on the websites of that state with regulators now. Article 18 [3] goes to add: “These contact points shall grant each other access to any available inventory listing organisers which are in compliance with their insolvency protection obligations. Any such inventory shall be publicly accessible, including online.”. Again, this obligation should be easy to satisfy and is already done in some states. Article 18 [4] provides for when doubts arise about the insolvency security claimed by a non-local organiser. Then the central contact point: “shall seek clarification from the organiser’s Member State of establishment. Member States shall respond to request from [each other] as quickly as possible 46 Though MS were free to impose such a role, as was done in Ireland. 47 Article 18 [2]. 48 The last line of Article 19 [1] applies Article 18 to LTA’s ‘mutatis mutandis’, necessary changes being made or like for like.