Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

296 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE including personalized ones, and to all combined tourist services, including those offered online. Considering the aforementioned, the new regulation concerning professional liability is particularly relevant, as it brings more benefits to consumers. In fact, the directive clearly states that the organiser is responsible for the correct execution of all tourist services offered in the package, unless the national law recognizes the responsibility of both sellers and organisers. On the one hand, in order to better protect the position of the “traveller”, he also has the right to contact the organiser through the seller to facilitate communication, especially for cross-border sales. On the other hand, some important cases regulated by specific consumer law regulations, such as contracts for single tourist services, packages or short-term tourist services (less than 24 hours), are excluded from the new directive goals. Packages or linked tourist services organized (non-profit) occasionally and only for a “limited group of travellers” (such as trips organized, not more than twice a year, by charitable or sports associations or schools), as well as the packages or related tourist services that are addressed to “professionals” within the framework of a “general agreement for the organization of professional trips between a professional and another natural or legal person working in his commercial, entrepreneurial, craft and professional environment”. Such an innovative directive, however, is equally clear concerning the new regulation of the contract’s termination and of the right of withdrawal before the start of its execution, according to Article 12 (in the Commission proposal Article 10). Particularly, from the first paragraph onwards the regulation establishes the important principle of the travellers’ right of withdrawal, which is free from charges before the package execution has begun and upon payment of the termination costs, putting anend to thewell-known lawtheorydebates on the subject of case classification and its wide interpretation. These expenses must be reasonable, standardized and justifiable (as happens in the case examined in recital n. 30, where the organiser could be asked for a reimbursement of the expenses to a subcontractor, who in turn demands payment regarding the right to change the name of the traveller or to cancel a transportation ticket and issue a new one). In other words, the penalty cannot be disproportionate and is only relevant at the time of the contract withdrawal communication (in some cases – as we have seen – the penalty also covered the entire cost of the package). Instead, it’s necessary that this amount also includes savings and revenues, which are expected to derive from the reassignment of tourist services. Only in the absence of standard termination expenses will it be possible to take the package price as a baseline, without considering the savings and revenues that may derive from the resale of the same to third parties (last minute or last second). Furthermore, the