Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

244 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE The burden of proof cannot be transferred back to the traveller by a standard term or a default setting stating that the traders’ pre-contractual obligations have been fully and correctly performed 3 . BIBLIOGRAPHY Josep Maria Bech Serrat, Selling Tourism Services at a Distance: An Analysis of the EU Consumer Acquis, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, 2012. Josep Maria Bech Serrat, “Consumer travel law”, in Christian Twigg-Flesner (Ed . ), Research Handbook on EU Consumer and Contract Law , Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, 2016, pp. 360-387. Christoph Busch, “The future of pre-contractual information duties: from behavioural insights to big data”, in Christian Twigg-Flesner (Ed.), Research Handbook on EU Consumer and Contract Law , Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, 2016, pp. 221-240. Philipp Hacker, ‘Personalizing EU Private Law: FromDisclosures to Nudges and Mandates’, European Review of Private Law , 3-2017, pp. 651–678. Geraint Howells, Christian Twigg-Flesner and Thomas Wilhelmsson, Rethinking EU Consumer Law , Routledge, London and New York, 2018, pp. 94-128. Marco B.M. Loos, “Precontractual information obligations for package travel contracts”, Journal of European Consumer and Market Law , 3-2016, pp. 124-130. Javier Melgosa Arcos, “The protection of tourists in Directive 2015/2302/ (EU) of 25 November on package travel and linked travel arrangements”, in Vicenzo Franceschelli, Francesco Morandi and Carlos Torres (Eds.), The New Package Travel Directive , ESHTE/INATEL, Estoril, 2017, pp. 39-70. Annette Nordhausen Scholes, “Information Requirements”, in Geraint Howells and Reiner Schulze (Eds.), Modernising and Harmonising Consumer Contract Law , Sellier, München, 2009, pp. 213-236. Katarzyna Poludniak-Gierz, ‘Personalization of Information Duties Challenges for Big Data Approach’, European Review of Private Law , 3-2018, pp. 297–310. Peter Root, “Information obligations and withdrawal rights”, in Christian Twigg-Flesner (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to European Union Private Law , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010, pp. 187-200. Martien Schaub, “How to Make the Best of Mandatory Information Requirements in Consumer Law”, European Review of Private Law , 1-2017, pp. 25-44. Christian Twigg-Flesner and Reiner Schulze, “Protecting rational choice: information and the right of withdrawal”, in Geraint Howells, Ian Ramsay and Thomas Wilhelmsson with David Kraft (Eds.), Handbook of Research on International Consumer Law , Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, 2011, pp. 130-157. 3 See C-449/13 CA Consumer Finance SA v Ingrid Bakkaus et. al., ECLI:EU:C:2014:2464, paras. 29-31. This judgment concerns the pre-contractual information duties of the Consumer Credit Directive which does not include any rules concerning the burden of proof regarding compliance with the information duties, and leaves this as something to be regulated by the domestic legal orders of the Member States. Nevertheless, the CJEU derived its European rule on the burden of proof for compliance with information requirements from the principle of effectiveness, entailing that domestic legal orders should not make it impossible in practice, or excessively difficult, to exercise rights conferred by the EU legal order. The argument was also considered valid for other pre-contractual information requirements, such as Art.5 CRD. Ibid. , p. 43.