Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

236 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE “clearly, comprehensibly and unambiguously” by the service provider prior to the order being placed by the recipient of the service. Pre-contractual information for distance and off-premises contracts shall be provided “in a clear and comprehensible manner” 2 ; whereas, the information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Art. 5 of the new Package Travel Directive shall be provided “in a clear, comprehensible and prominent manner” and, where such information is provided in writing, “it shall be legible” (Art. 5(3) of the new PTD). The old Package Travel Directive does not explicitly require that the information has to be provided in this manner. It should be noted, however, that the requirement that the information may not be misleading, and that information provided through a brochure had to be legible, comprehensible and accurate 3 more or less fulfilled the same purpose as its equivalent in the new Package Travel Directive 4 . When information is provided in unfamiliar and complex terms, consumers will be reluctant to read the information or at least they will be less capable of processing the information adequately. If this is the case, it can be argued that the information has not been provided in a clear and comprehensible manner 5 . Within an online context it is particularly easy to present information in such a way that it is less likely to be noticed, whilst at the same time highlighting other items of information 6 . On the basis of the transparency requirement of Art. 7(1) of the new Package Travel Directive, it may now be argued that, when designing the ordering procedure, organisers should pay particular attention to the information listed, taking into account traveller behaviour and applying user- -friendly (or rather consumer-friendly), rather than organiser friendly, web design 7 . The requirement of providing the consumer with package travel contracts “in plain and intelligible language” as provided in Art. 7(1) cannot be understood as in a language the traveller is able to understand. Although language issues are 2 Art. 6(1) CRD. 3 See recital 11 of the old Package Travel Directive. Moreover, Arts. 6 and 5 UCPD. 4 Marco B.M. Loos, “Precontractual information obligations for package travel contracts”, Journal of European Consumer and Market Law , 3 -2016, 124 -130, pp. 126-127. 5 Regarding Art. 5 CRD, Martien Schaub, “How to Make the Best of Mandatory Information Requirements in Consumer Law”, European Review of Private Law , 1-2017, 25-44, p. 38. 6 Information on the exact costs of the contract might be featured on the website in a less conspicuous manner, for example by using smaller lettering or making the information noticeable only after scrolling down the webpage. 7 As for Art. 6 CRD, Martien Schaub, “How to Make the Best of Mandatory Information Requirements in Consumer Law”, European Review of Private Law , 1 -2017, 25-44. In addition, it was argued that specifications of Art. 8(2) and (3) CRD in relation to information provision entail that certain items cannot be included in a separate document that contains standard terms, or be obscured by ‘trader-friendly’ website-design.