Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

CYPRUS | CHRISTIANA MARKOU 735 limitation period is provided for in the said law, the aforementioned exclusion of its application to rights falling within the scope of Law 186(I)/2017 can prove useful. However, the exact reproduction of Article 14(6) of the Directive in Article 13(6) of the Law is inappropriate. As Directives are addressed to Member States (and national legislators), it is acceptable for Article 14(6) to provide that the relevant limitation period shall not be less than two years . In effect, the Directive allows Member States to specify a limitation period longer than two years (for example, three years) but not shorter than two years. For the national implementations however, a similar wording is not acceptable; this is especially so in the case of provisions laying down limitation periods, which must definitely not entail any uncertainty. Thus, the content of Article 13(6) of the Law stating that the limitation period shall not be less than two years is not perfect. Of course, the safest option for claimants and their lawyers is to bring any relevant legal actions before the expiration of two years, however it is true that the said provision does not actually establish a clear and precise limitation period, as it should. It ensures that said period will not be taken to be less than two years but is actually silent on how long that limitation period exactly is. Chances are that courts will interpret Article 13(6) as establishing a two-year limitation period, yet this is an example of cases in which the legislator could prevent uncertainty and save court time but failed to do so. Another difference between the Directive and the Law is found in Article 14 of the Law, which implements Article 15 of the Directive. The former omits the phrase “without prejudice to second paragraph of Article 13(1)”, however this is only natural. The said provision of the Directive provides for the possibility of Member States to make the retailer equally liable for the performance of the package. Accordingly, though the said phrase was appropriate in the context of the Directive, it had no room in the corresponding national implementations. The Law contains extra wording also in the next provision, namely Article 15 of the Law, which provides for the obligation of organisers to offer travellers assistance as per Article 16 of theDirective.The said provisions in synchronization provide that when the assistance is provided as a result of a problem intentionally or negligently caused by the traveller, the organiser can charge reasonable fees for the said assistance, which must not however exceed the actual cost incurred as a result. Article 15 of the Law goes a bit further clarifying that the organiser must keep proof of the said cost (such as receipts) so that the cost can be ascertained. Though this additional provision does not exist in the Directive, it is not inconsistent with the maximum harmonization nature of the Directive. Indeed,