Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

814 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE or if the price reduction is not appropriate. This right applies only when a significant proportion of the travel services cannot be provided pursuant to the contract; – The traveller is entitled to terminate the contract, as well as to request repatriation, if the contract provided transport and the lack of conformity substantially affects the performance of the package. Such a termination is at no costs for the traveller. The repatriation obligation was already set out in the tourism code in article L.211-15 in fine . French courts apply these provisions severely to the travel agent. The rights now expressly provided to travellers under Article 13 of the Directive are very broad. Most importantly, travellers will assess the extent of their rights and French courts will certainly and generally be reluctant to oppose a different interpretation. For instance, when the Eyjafjöll volcano erupted, many travellers were stuck at their destination without having the possibility to travel back home. In a court case, a family had booked a package to Greece. Because of the volcano eruption, the European airspace remained closed for several days. The family was thus not able to return to Paris at the agreed date. Consequently, they had to arrange further accommodation at their hotel in Greece for two additional days. They were then offered an air transport to Vienna but no other alternative transport to Paris. The French court observed that no compensation can be sought given that this should be considered as a force majeure case. Nevertheless, it further ruled that pursuant to Article L.211-5 of the tourism code, the travel agent had to offer alternative arrangements and, in particular, accommodation and alternative transport to Paris. The travel agent was held to pay the accommodation costs supported by the family, as well as the train expenses to Paris 16 . The Cour de Cassation (the highest jurisdiction under the French legal system) confirmed this position in other very similar cases 17 . It appears that this position will certainly remain applicable after the transposition of the Directive in France. Nevertheless, the Directive provides a cap in such particular situations. The organiser shall support the costs up to three nights for accommodation in the 16 Jur. Prox. Orléans, 15 février 2011, nr. 91-10-380, BTL nr. 3370 20June 2001, p371. 17 Cass. Civ. 1, 8 March 2012, nr. 10-25913; Cass. Civ. 1, 17 October 2012, nr. 11-23387.