Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

FRANCE | EMMANUELLE LLOP 799 As for the “ other travel services ” referred to in Article L.211-2-I-4, we must look for examples in recitals 17 and 18 of Directive 2302, according to which these other tourist services are not an integral part of a transport travel service, accommodation or vehicle rental and may be as follows: travel insurance, access to concerts or sporting events, excursions or theme parks, guided tours, ski passes or spa treatments. France is therefore the only European country to have extended the scope of the Directive to cover isolated travel services. It was created by the Order of 1 March, 2018, a standard form that does not exist in the Appendices – the Form Appendix 1- Part D – that the professional must complete and give to the traveller who, for example, buys from him a single night stay at a hotel! This is again a case of over transposition, justified by the Government as based upon the previous law in the Tourism Code, effective since 1992, but also criticized by the French unions in their action for over transposition. According to article L. 211-17 of the French Tourism Code, the liability of the professional is mainly expressed in two ways for the traveller: an appropriate price reduction for any period of non-compliance of services and/or damages (as soon as possible) for the damage suffered as a result of these non-conformities. LIMITATION AND EXEMPTION OF LIABILITY How can this strict responsibility be mitigated or waived? On the one hand, and always thanks to the action of guarantee against the provider (who supplied the package services or the isolated travel services), it will be possible to attribute the responsibility to the true author of the non-compliance. On the other hand, and this is a new French provision, the appeal is open to professionals against “ any third party who contributed to the fact at the origin of the compensation, price reduction or other obligations ” whereby professional have had to grant or bear the benefit to the customer. This appeal is broader than the principle of exemption from liability by the third party, because it is not required, in this case, for the third party to be outside the travel contract. It is assumed that this is an explanation of the principle of the appeal against the provider. As for the exemption from liability, the principle is maintained seeing as it is the corollary of the responsibilities for framed fault (as in the PTD) or, as in France, the strict liability. The professional may resolve the contract or be