Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

ARTICLE 2 | JOSÉ ÁNGEL TORRES LANA 97 The last paragraph of art. 3 (5) contains an important exception to the concept of linked travel arrangements, which once again is reliant on the types of travel services listed in point 1 of the same article. This norm is also difficult to understand and may be expressed thus: the acquisition of just one service from those listed in points (a), (b) and (c) of point 1 of the article or of one or more of those listed in point (d) shall not constitute linked travel arrangements where that acquisition does not account for a significant proportion of the value of the combination, nor are they advertised as an essential characteristic of the combination, nor do they represent an essential feature of the trip or holiday. Once again, the norm uses two familiar expressions, ‘significant proportion’ and ‘essential characteristic’. They have both been used in points (a) and (b) – precisely those that are repeated – of art. 3 (2) to exclude certain services from the concept of package travel. I refer to my previous statements on the subject. Ultimately, it would appear that the subtle line separating linked travel arrangements from the acquisition of services that do not constitute linked travel arrangements is based on their importance or significance with regard to package travel. They do not constitute linked travel arrangements when they represent services that may be considered as accessory to the main services, which are those that constitute package travel. Lastly, it should not be forgotten that despite the necessary distinction between package travel and linked travel arrangements, they share common features, such as how they both require the acquisition of more than one service. However, in contrast to the situation regarding package travel, in linked travel arrangements each service is paid separately. When acquiring individual services, they are differentiated, like in the case of linked travel arrangements, by the need for more than one of them to be acquired. In contrast, an individual service falls entirely within the scope of the private autonomy of the traveller, i.e. his/her contractual freedom. 5. So far I have set out the scope of application of Directive 2015/2302. Nevertheless, as I noted at the start of this commentary, the scope of non- -applicability, established in point 2 of the article being examined, is more specific. In truth, it deals with very specific cases. They are not infrequent, but they do not represent a significant proportion, whether in quantitative or qualitative terms, within the broad scope of tourist travel. The first thing we should indicate is how the three excluded cases comply in full with the requirements laid down in the Directive, in order for them to