Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

LITHUANIA | DANGUOLĖ BUBLIENĖ AND IEVA NAVICKAITĖ-SAKALAUSKIENĖ 989 the debate, taking into account this “double regime” approach concerning the traveller (depending on if he is the consumer or not). It is also questionable whether it might be the result of different court practice when asserting if the level of weaknesses is the same for the consumer and the traveller who is not a consumer in the narrow sense. In any case, the Court might conclude that the Directive equated the traveller who is not a consumer in a narrow sense to the “usual” consumer, therefore there is the same level of weakness for both. If it is considered in such a way, there would be no reasons to not apply the unfair contract terms regime or other consumer protection regulation to the travellers who are not consumers in a narrow sense. However, in this context, it should be mentioned that the first steps towards the broader interpretation of the term “traveller” (or tourist as it is defined in national law) have already been stepped in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Lithuania 25 , applying for the protection not only for travellers-consumers in the narrow sense. By interpreting the national provisions implementing the old Travel Directive, the Supreme Court of Lithuania explained that the contract concluded between the trade union and the organiser for the provision of tourism services shall be qualified as a package travel contract. The Court has stated that although a trade union concluded the contract, its purpose, however, was the satisfaction of the personal needs of natural persons who were not acting for the purpose related to their business or profession, these persons paid for these services, of which they were the beneficiaries. These characteristics determine the contract’s qualification as a consumer contract. In the authors’ view, this interpretation was innovative and can be evaluated as running behind the limits, which were set by the regulation existing at the time. On the other hand, this kind of interpretation remains reasonable and relevant in the context of the regulation established by the Travel Directive. However, it is also clear that a more comprehensive interpretation of the regulation regime might always cause hesitations, and that would not add value to the legal certainty. Furthermore, the broadening of the “consumer” concept can cause uncertainties concerning the regulation of the ADR procedure. Article 25 (2) of the Law on Tourism establishes that “disputes about a package travel contract and about the inadequate performance or the non-performance of the services contained in linked tourist service arrangements may be examined by extrajudicial procedure in accordance with the procedure set out in the Lithuanian Law on 25 The ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, 17 May 2011, case No. 3K-3-239/2011.