Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

920 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE It is worth pointing out that, compared to the Italian version of the European Union rules, the national legislator has correctly used the technical terms corresponding to the true nature of the regulated legal institutions and thus, in particular, has preferred to use the term “withdrawal” in place of the term “resolution” used improperly in the Italian language version of the Directive. However, the questions relating to the widespread use of “elastic” clauses for the purposes of evaluating or qualifying the contractual changes and consequent obligations remain (apparently) unsolved. As a result, for example, the formulas “of minor importance”, “in a significant manner”, “unjustified” delay, “reasonable” period, “adequate” price reduction, standard costs for a “reasonable” withdrawal have remained unaltered. The principles of good faith referred to in articles 1175 and 1375 of the Civil Code is, in any case, destined to guide the interpreter in applying the European Union regulations. In exercising the possibility explicitly set out in art. 12, par. 5, of the Directive (EU) 2015/2302, moreover, for contracts negotiated away from business premises, the national legislator has introduced a special regulation regarding the withdrawal of repentance which presents significant deviations from the general regulations dictated by the Consumer Code 50 . Actually, European Union legislation allows the Member States to provide for, in national law, the traveller to have the right to withdraw from the package travel contract “within a period of 14 days without giving any reasons”. Art. 41, par. 7, lett. g ), of the Tourism Code instead establishes that the right to withdraw ad nutum and without penalties must be exercised by the traveller within a period of five days from the conclusion of the contract or from the subsequent date on which the traveller receives the contractual conditions and the preliminary information. The right of withdrawal is then completely ruled out if the traveller has had access to offers with “significantly reduced rates compared to the current offers”, without prejudice to the burden for the organiser to document the price change by adequately highlighting the exclusion of the right to withdrawal. However, this is a choice substantially consistent with provisions set out by art. 2, par. 1, of Legislative Decree No. 62/2018, which establishes, in implementing provisions regarding art. 27 of the Directive (EU) 2015/2302, that the provisions of Sections I to IV of Chapter I, Title III, of Legislative Decree No. 206/2005 50 See the discipline of the right of withdrawal pursuant to Title III, Chapter I, Section II, Articles 52-59 of the Consumer Code, as amended by Legislative Decree 21 February 2014, No. 21, implementing Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights, amending Directives 93/13/EEC and 1999/44/EC and repealing Directives 85/577/CEE and 97/7/CE.