Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

ARTICLE 14 | MICHAEL WUKOSCHITZ 355 delay fell outside the scope of Article 29 of the Montreal Convention 42 . It therefore seems likely that the CJEU will rather follow the concept of a “weak exclusivity”. 2. International conventions not binding the Union With regard to international conventions not binding the Union, Article 14 (4) leaves it to the member states to implement a limitation of the liability of the organiser according to such conventions. Insofar, Article 14 (3) constitutes one of the few exceptions from the principle of full harmonisation that governs the Directive 43 . 3. Contractual limitation of liability According to Article 14 (4), the package travel contract may limit compensation to be paid by the organiser. However, such limitation must not apply to personal injury or damage caused intentionally or with negligence. As “intention” and “negligence” are the two possible manifestations of fault , the provision is another clear indication that fault is no fundamental requirement of liability any more: if there was no liability without fault it wouldn’t make sense to only allow for a contractual limitation of liability in cases when there is no fault. Or in other words: where liability doesn’t apply at all it cannot be subject to a contractual limitation. In addition, the limited liability must not amount to less than three times the total price of the package. Given these tough restrictions, it seems unlikely that a contractual limitation of liability could really have a noticeable impact on the traveller’s right to compensation. V. RELATION TO PASSENGER RIGHTS REGULATIONS Article 14 (5) provides that any right to compensation or price reduction under the Directive shall not affect the rights of travellers under the European Passenger 42 CJEU 10.01.2006, C-344/04 IATA and ELFAA v Department for Transport and CJEU 19.11.2009, joint Cases C-402/07 Sturgeon v Condor and C-432/07 Böck ea v Air France . 43 Article 4.