Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

CYPRUS | CHRISTIANA MARKOU 741 as well) is responsible for the performance of the package 10 . In this respect, Article 23 of the Law (implementing Article 22 of the Directive on the right of redress against third parties), naturally only makes reference to the organiser. The Cypriot legislator has not exercised the option contained in Article 14(4) of the Directive either. Accordingly, the Law contains no provision limiting the compensation that has to be paid by the organiser to the traveller where international treaties not binding upon the EU limit the compensation paid by service providers. This choice however obviously increases consumer protection. Finally, another option is afforded to Member States through Article 12 of the Directive; this provision allows Member States to introduce a right of withdrawal within 14 days (a cooling-off period) for the cases where a travel package contract is concluded off-premises. This is the notorious withdrawal right applicable to distance and off-premises contracts by virtue of the Consumer Rights Directive (Directive 2011/83/EU), which, through its Article 3(3)(g), excludes from its scope, package travel contracts. Though the exercise of that option would increase consumer protection, the decision of the Cypriot legislator not to do so does not leave any serious gap in protection. There has never been a withdrawal right in the case of off-premises travel package contracts and moreover, this sale channel, especially in relation to travel packages, is not common in Cyprus. 4. CONCLUSION Cyprus has transposed the Directive verbatim and therefore, there are not many controversial provisions in the Cypriot implementing law. Several differences in the wording of some of the provisions between the Directive and the Law do exist however. In some cases, these clarify certain important matters, such as the “significant proportion” ingredient in the core definitions of “package” and “linked travel arrangement” and the term “insolvent”, which is central to the provisions on insolvency protection. In other cases, added wording, such as that in relation to provisions on price alteration, does not seem capable of achieving its purpose fully, yet fortunately, it does not in any way harm the essence of the provisions as intended by the Directive. There are also cases, such as in relation to the provision on time limitation for claims, in which the choice of transposing the Directive verbatim is not appropriate, as the provision does not, as a result, 10 See also supra at p. 403.