Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive
ARTICLE 13 | FRANCESCO MORANDI AND CHIARA TINCANI 333 then incorporated in art. 93, par. 1 of the Consumer Code 32 and finally reiterated by art. 43, par. 1 of the Tourism Code 33 . The Italian legislator has worked within the limits set by the Directive (EU) 2015/2302, taking full advantage of the margins established by art. 13, par. 1, comma 2, of the European Union legislation, which states that “ Member States may maintain or introduce in their national law provisions under which the retailer is also responsible for the performance of the package ”. Faithful to national legal tradition, art. 50 of the Tourism Code identifies the relation between traveller and retailer as an autonomous “intermediate travel contract”, formally distinct from the “package travel contract” 34 . Consistent 32 The Consumer Code reiterated the principle, taking care to specify, however, that “the differences in the quality standards of the promised or advertised service are considered to be inexact fulfillment” (in the second part of the article referred to in the text). 33 According to the previous regime, therefore, “without prejudice to the obligations envisaged by art. 42, in the event of failure or inadequate fulfillment of the obligations assumed with the sale of the package travel, the organiser and the intermediary are required to pay damages, according to the respective responsibilities. The differences in the quality standards of the promised or advertised service are considered to be incorrect”. 34 In the past, the question has been the subject of numerous disputes (which now seem destined to be resolved definitively in the sense indicated in the text), especially in relation to the criteria of imputation of liability applicable to the organiser and / or the retailer of package travel: the jurisprudence of legitimacy has often been uncertain with respect to the exact qualification of the relationship between traveller, retailer and organiser of the travel package, and to the consequent identification of the respective areas of responsibility: see Cass. civ., 28 November 2002, No. 16868, in Corr. giur. , 2003, p. 583, with a comment by E. Guerinoni, Penale per la disdetta del viaggio e diritti dell’agenzia intermediaria , and in Dir. tur ., 2003, 349, with a comment by A. Corrado, Il turista deve rimborsare all’agenzia di viaggi la penale anticipata al tour operator; Cass. civ., Sez. III, 10 February 2005, No. 2713, in Dir. tur ., 2005, p. 337, with a comment by G. Bailetti, Responsabilità solidale del venditore e dell’organizzatore di viaggi? , in Dir. trasp ., 2007, p. 129, with a comment by A. Tamburro, Responsabilità solidale o alternativa dell’organizzatore e del venditore di pacchetti turistici? , and in Resp. civ. prev. , 2005, p. 464; Cass. civ., Sez. III, 13 November 2009, No. 24044, in Giust. civ ., 2010, I, p. 1683 with a comment by M. Cocuccio, Responsabilità del venditore di pacchetto turistico per infortunio del turista durante un’escursione ; Cass. civ., 19 January 2010, No. 696, in Foro it ., 2010, I, c. 841; already before, Cass. civ., 19 January 1999, No. 460, in Contr. , 1999, p. 903, with a comment by C. Pozzi, Intermediario e organizzatore di viaggio: applicazioni della CCV del 23 aprile 1970 . In the jurisprudence of merit, in various way, see Pret. Conegliano, 4 February 1997, in Resp. civ. prev ., 1997, p. 818, with a comment by M. Gorgoni; Trib. Perugia, 3 May 1997, in Rass. giur. umbra , 1998, p. 44, with a comment by G. Ciurnelli; Giud. pace Milano, 28 December 1997, in Giud. pace , 1999, p. 58, with a comment by S. Palmieri, Natura giuridica del c.d. danno da vacanza rovinata ; Trib. Roma, 3 June 2002, in Contr ., 2002, p. 932; Trib. Roma, 7 February 2003, in Dir. tur. , 2003, p. 353, with a comment by A. Corrado, op. ult. cit .; Trib. Roma, 2 October 2003, in Dir. trasp ., 2005, p. 285, with a comment by L. Tullio, Interpretazioni discutibili ed inquietanti della normativa sul contratto di viaggio ; Trib. Reggio Emilia, 21 February 2004, in Foro it ., 2004, I, c. 2555; Giud. pace Parma, 19 March 2004, in Dir. tur ., 2005, p. 273, with a comment by F. Scortecci, Ancora sulla responsabilità del venditore e dell’organizzatore della vacanza ; Trib. Napoli, 17 May 2005, in Corr. merito , 2005, p. 878; Giud. pace Casoria, 7 September 2005, in Giud. pace , 2006, p. 138, with a comment by V. Amendolagine, Responsabilità dell’intermediario-organizzatore di pacchetti turistici “tutto compreso” per i disagi arrecati all’utente e risarcibilità del danno esistenziale in re ipsa; Trib. Lucca, 28 January 2006, n. 45, in Resp. civ. prev ., 2007, p. 611, with a comment by S. Vernizzi, Brevi note in materia di responsabilità dell’organizzatore di viaggi e dell’intermediario (venditore) ; Trib. Torino, 8 October 2007, in Dir. tur ., 2008, 159, with a comment by C. Tincani, I presupposti della responsabilità dell’intermediario di viaggio ; Trib. Prato, 2 September 2008, in Foro it ., 2008, I, c. 3346; previously, see also Trib. Roma, 23 March 1988, in Giur. it ., 1991, I, p. 66, and Trib. Milano, 26 November 1992, in Resp. civ. prev ., 1993, p. 856.
Made with FlippingBook
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NzgyNzEy