Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

918 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE is provided to the traveller, who is thus assisted by “reinforced” administrative protection 43 . 5. CHANGES TO THE PACKAGE TRAVEL CONTRACT The ius variandi discipline, referred to in Section III (articles 38-41 of theTourism Code), reproduces the highly detailed provisions contained in articles 9 to 12 of the Directive (EU) 2015/2302, which regulate the cases in which the traveller can assign the travel package contract to others and the specific hypotheses in which the tour operator is allowed to modify the contract’s content 44 . The case of the transfer of the contract alsomantains in the new text its character of a bilateral contract, making an exception to the ordinary trilateral structure envisaged by art. 1406 of the Civil Code 45 , and is enriched by a series of more detailed provisions than in the past, with the aim of preventing possible disputes. In accordancewith the provisions establishedby theEuropeanUnion regulations, the notice period is extended to 7 days (instead of the previous 4), the notification must be given on a durable medium (rather than in writing) and the transfer can take place ad nutum (instead of in the case of being unable to benefit from the package travel). The passive solidarity regime is expressly referred to, in addition to the price, to any rights, taxes and other additional costs, including any administrative and management fees (rather than, more generically, to additional expenses that may derive from the transfer), with the obligation that they are effective, reasonable, do not exceed the actual costs incurred and are proven by the organiser. With reference to the contract modifications that the organiser is allowed to undertake, the price revision regulation, which introduces a new symmetry 43 With reference to the various aspects of the complaint, as well as the question concerning the expiry of the terms established by the previous regulations, see Giud. pace Roma, 27 September 2001, in Dir. mar ., 2003, p. 574, with a comment by R. Abbate, Pacchetto turistico e tutela del consumatore ; Giud. pace Caserta, 28 May 2002, in Dir. trasp ., 2003, p. 229 with a comment by L. Tullio, La qualificazione del termine per la presentazione del reclamo nel contratto di viaggio ; Trib. Roma, 2 October 2003, in Dir. trasp ., 2005, p. 285, with a comment by L. Tullio, Interpretazioni discutibili ed inquietanti della normativa sul contratto di viaggio ; Cass. civ., Sez. III, 31 July 2006, No. 17444, in Dir. mar ., 2007, p. 840; Giud. pace Genova, 24 October 2007, in Dir. tur ., 2008, p. 35, with a comment by S. d’Urso, Danno da vacanza rovinata e termine per il reclamo di cui all’art. 98 cod. cons .; App. Genova, 28 December 2011, in Dir. mar ., 2013, p. 468. 44 See S. Pagliantini, Modifiche anteriori e recesso da un contratto di pacchetto turistico secondo il canone della dir. 2015/2302/UE: per un repertorio (frastagliato) di problemi teorici e pratici a prima lettura , in La nuova disciplina europea dei contratti di viaggio , cit., p. 65, and V. Battistella, Sub artt. 38 e 39 , in D.lgs. 23 maggio 2011, n. 79, Codice del turismo , cit., p. 1220. 45 G. Silingardi – F. Morandi, La “vendita di pacchetti turistici” , cit., p. 61, e G.Tassoni, Il contratto di viaggio , cit., p. 206.