Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

922 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE After having established the general principle of responsibility of the organiser for the improper execution of the services provided by the package travel contract (art. 42, par. 1, of the Tourism Code) 56 , the national legislator attributes specific value to the application of good faith principles, pursuant to articles 1175 and 1375 of the Civil Code, and of responsibility to the associates and collaborators, pursuant to art. 1228 of the same Code. In particular, it is confirmed that the organiser is responsible for the execution of the promised services, irrespective of the fact that they must be provided by the organiser himself, by the associates or collaborators when they are acting in the exercise of their functions, by the third parties whose work the organiser relies upon or other travel service providers 57 . The legislation regarding the organiser’s liability is closely related to the notion of “lack of conformity” 58 – understood as any “non-fulfillment of the travel services included in a package” – which art. 33, par. 1, lett. p ), of the Tourism Code attributes to the general principle of the debtor’s liability established in art. 1218 of the Civil Code, thus simplifying the definition offered by art. 3, n. 13, of the Directive (EU) 2015/2302. In this regard, it should be emphasized that, in favor of adopting a general clause of attribution of responsibility, the legislator has turned down any reference to the “discrepancy of the quality standards of the promised or advertised service ” 59 to which the previous art. 43, par. 1, second part, of the Tourism Code referred to as a parameter for the purpose of assessing the existence of an incorrect fulfilment by the organiser and the retailer 60 . 56 See E. Orrù, Sub artt. 42 e 43 , in D.lgs. 23 maggio 2011, n. 79, Codice del turismo , cit., pp. 1263 e 1288. 57 Art. 42, par. 1, of the Tourism Code expressly refers to the regulation of the liability of the auxiliaries pursuant to art. 1228 of the Civil Code. 58 See A. Finessi, Prestazione di servizi “non conformi” al contratto di viaggio e rimedi contrattuali esperibili dal viaggiatore nella dir. 2015/2302/UE: prospettive di attuazione nell’ordinamento giuridico italiano , in La nuova disciplina europea dei contratti di viaggio , cit., p. 101. 59 On the value of voluntary standards and the reference to standards as criteria for evaluating and measuring the quality of performance, in general, see M. Cimmino, Qualità della vacanza ed inesatto adempimento , Napoli, 2008 (part. pp. 133 and 161); with reference to the corresponding principle of compliance with the contract envisaged for the sale and guarantees of consumer goods, see G. De Cristofaro, Difetto di conformità al contratto e diritti del consumatore. L’ordinamento italiano e la Direttiva 99/44/CE sulla vendita e le garanzie dei beni di consumo , Cedam, Padova, 2000, p. 53; M.P. Mantovani, La vendita dei beni di consumo , ESI, Napoli, 2009, p. 22; see also G. Amadio, Difetto di conformità e tutele sinallagmatiche , in Riv. dir. civ. , 2001, I, p. 889; Id., La conformità al contratto tra garanzia e responsabilità , in Contr. impr. Europa , 2001, p. 10; E. Gabrielli, Aliud pro alio e difetto di conformità nella vendita di beni di consumo , in Riv. dir. priv ., 2003, p. 657; M. Rabitti, Garanzie convenzionali nella vendita di beni di consumo tra promessa al pubblico e regole di formazione del contratto , in Contr. impr ., 2008, p. 945. 60 The choice of recognizing an improper performance in all those hypotheses in which the travel service does not correspond to the qualitative level contractually due would have implied the need for further regulatory measures aimed at identifying parameters technical and uniform criteria on which to base the rating system: A. Finessi, La responsabilità del professionista nella nuova disciplina dei contratti di viaggio , cit., p. 1320.