Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

326 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE The task of individual Member States is objectively difficult, and imprecise concepts, such as that of “ mutatis mutandis ”, do not help define legitimate national models. 3. THE TRANSPOSITION OF ART. 13, PAR. 1, SUB-PAR. 2, IN COUNTRIES WITH GREATER TOURIST APPEAL As was highlighted, pursuant to art. 13, par. 1, sub-par. 2, individual Member States can regulate the responsibility of the intermediary independently. There are two prevalent models when implementing Directive (EU) 2015/2302. The first framework 19 implies a joint responsibility of the organiser and the retailer and, as a result, the latter too is responsible for the execution of the contract stipulated by the organiser. On the other hand, the second paradigm 20 outlines separate responsibilities for each subject, whereby everyone is responsible for the non-fulfilment of the obligations directly taken on; in this case, the traveller can take action, as a result of the wrong execution of the package, only towards the organiser, while the retailers are responsible for the obligations connected to their activity 21 . In general, we note the States’ propensity to make use of the option indicated in art. 13, par. 1, sub-par. 2, particularly those with a strong capacity for tourist attraction. For example, in France, via order n. 2017 – 1717, dated December 20, 2017 22 , both the organiser and the retailer are accountable for the execution of the contract. With regard to the modified art. L. 211 – 16 – I, first paragraph, of the Tourism Code, the operator is the one responsible and, that is, whoever 19 In Italy, see C.S. Carassi, Tutela del turista nei viaggi a forfait. Finalmente una risposta adeguata del legislatore italiano? Commento al decreto legislativo 17 marzo 1995, n. 111 , in Corr. giur ., 1995, p. 904; C. Vaccà, Commento agli artt. 14 – 19 , in Viaggi, vacanze e circuiti tutto compreso, Commentario al d. lgs. 17 marzo 1995, n. 111 , edited by V. Roppo, in Nuove leggi civ. comm. , 1997, p. 57; M. Tommasini, Interventi normativi sulla responsabilità degli operatori turistici nei contratti di viaggio tutto compreso (dalla convenzione internazionale del 1970 al decreto legislativo n. 111 del 1995 attuativo della direttiva Cee 314 / 90) , in Giust. civ ., 2000, II, p. 262. 20 In Italy, see L. Tullio, La responsabilità dell’organizzatore e dell’intermediario di viaggi turistici , in Studi in onore di Cesare Massimo Bianca , vol. III, Giuffrè, Milano, 2006, p. 991; P. Stanzione – A. Musio, I contratti relativi alla fornitura di servizi turistici , in La tutela del consumatore , in Tratt. dir. priv. , directed by M. Bessone, vol. XXX, Utet, Torino, 2009, p. 399; L. Rossi Carleo – M. Dona, Il contratto di viaggio turistico , ESI, Napoli, 2010, p. 141. 21 In Italy the relationship that links the traveler and the retailer is attributable to the mandate contract: v. below the next paragraph. 22 With order No. 2017 – 1717 of 20 December 2017, France has amended some provisions of the Tourism Code to make it consistent with Directive (EU) 2015/2302.