Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

178 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE changed since they could hasten insolvency. Rather there is closer regulator surveillance and conditions imposed on licence renewal. What may happen as Ireland transposes Directive 2015/2302 is briefly mentioned in Part 8. Shopping cross–border for the cheapest security regime Whatever formulae are used it seems likely that some MS will require higher across-the-board security than others. The higher cost of this will result in a certain level of market distortion across the EU. Regulators in a higher- -security-cost MS will have to accept security from a lower-security-cost MS. But the local organiser/facilitator in a higher-cost-of-security MS may feel aggrieved at paying more for its security than its foreign competitor in the same local market. This may lead to ‘shopping’ by organisers/facilitators to find cheaper states in which to establish themselves and takeout the cheaper security. Some MS may deliberately structure the calculation of security in such a way as to reduce the cost of the security thereby enticing traders to establish in their state. Given that the EU law-maker chose not to opt for a prescriptive formula for calculating the size of the security in all MS, these distortions seem unavoidable. The alternative to leaving MS free to set their own formulae for determining the size of organiser/facilitator security and other matters is to establish a pan- -European security system. The idea of doing this via an EU-wide licensing system which could seek to prevent insolvencies, as well as standardising insolvency security protection dealing with their aftermath, does not seem to have ever been seriously considered. Feedback showed “no support among most stakeholders” 51 for this. Instead, many responses favoured increased cooperation among MS and exchange of best practice in this area. They also “raised the need to clarify how to handle cross-border cases …” – p 8. Accessing the security guarantee Para 39 of the Preamble to the new Directive, as previously noted, says the insolvency protection should become available ‘as soon as’ the contract is not being and will not be performed because of organiser insolvency. Refunds when required should be made ‘without undue delay’. The security “shall be available free of charge” for repatriation and any pre-repatriation accommodation – Article 17 [4]. The Directive says nothing about charges for refunds, which may 51 EU Commission [2007b], p 6. Bold emphasis not reproduced.