Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

CYPRUS | CHRISTIANA MARKOU 737 will not actually perform travel services scheduled to be offered at a later date), (iii) when they will be performed only partly or (iv) even when service providers require travellers personally to pay for the service. The latter seems to have been inspired by relevant CJEU case law under the old Package Travel Directive clarifying that the security-related provisions also apply to the case where a hotel requires that the traveller (who had already paid accommodation costs to an organiser who in the meantime became insolvent) pay for the accommodation to the hotel too 6 . Interestingly, in addition to Article 17(2) of the Directive implemented in Article 16(3) of the Law, Article 16(4) of the Law goes further, thereby providing an indicative list of four factors, namely (a) the type of the sold packages including the mode of transport involved, (b) the travel destination, (c) the legal limitations or the commitments of the organiser regarding the pre-payment amounts which he can accept and (d) the time they take place prior to the initiation of the package. It is not clear what role this (additional) provision will have in practice with regards to the adequacy of the provided security but it is intended to guide the Authorized Service or the Approved Body in assessing the effectiveness of the provided security (as is explained below). 3.2. Provisions performing obligations imposed on Member States by the Directive What is definite is that the Cypriot legislator has introduced quite detailed provisions in order to give effect to the “effectiveness” requirement of Article 17(2) of the Directive. These and the rest of the features of the Cypriot implementation that will now be discussed cannot really be described as differences between the Directive and the Law. Rather, they are provisions evincing the Cypriot legislator responding to what the Directive required that Member States do (such as ensuring effective insolvency protection) or making one choice or another when an option was afforded to the Member States (such as rendering the retailer liable for the performance of the package). Starting with the provisions on insolvency protection, according to Article 16(6) of the Law, in order for the security to be considered effective, it must be in the form of one of the two security-related arrangements provided for in Articles 17 and 18 of the Law. It should be stated that these provisions together with Article 16 also apply to the case of linked travel arrangements (and not just to 6 Case C-364/96, 14/5/1998.