Tourism Law in Europe

21 of the obligation imposed by article 78.1.3 of the aforementioned Order on four and five- star hotels (and which was later extended by now repealed regulations to other establishments), for them to have a guard and custody service for certain effects that had to be delivered directly to the employer or employees, under receipt, a distinction began to be made between “money, jewellery, and effects of great value” and the rest of the guest's luggage. While the goods that made up the latter remained under the custody and safekeeping of the client, the employer being liable for their disappearance or damage, provided that the guest had not followed the instructions given by the latter on the security measures to be followed (checking the effects when they are in the common areas, leaving doors and windows closed when leaving, not inviting third parties to the room, etc.); the former, under the protection of the employer, were to be handed over directly to the guest, who was to be responsible for the loss or damage to them. ); the former, under article 78.2 in fine of the Ministerial Order of 1968, had to be handed over directly to the employer or his employees so that the latter could not assume any responsibility for their damage or disappearance. Over time, moreover, the use of the individual safety deposit box became standardised as a protection measure imposed, first by the aforementioned Order itself and by pre- constitutional state regulations, now repealed, and subsequently by regional regulations. This means that today, we have to ask ourselves whether or not the objects carried by the traveller are treated in the same way, whether they are under his direct supervision, whether they are kept in the individual safety deposit box or whether they are handed over to the employer to be kept and guarded by him in the hotel's central safety deposit box. Well, it should be pointed out that, from the outset, we can distinguish two different situations: those that the CC considers as a necessary deposit, that is, the guest's goods that are not delivered under receipt to the employer or his employees 48 ; and those that 48 These would undoubtedly include the objects deposited in the individual boxes, as they are introduced with the rest of the goods and remain, like the latter, under the guard and custody of the traveller. However, while SÁENZ DE SANTA MARÍA VIERNA, A. “Cajas de seguridad en hoteles”, Revista de Derecho Mercantil , no. 240, 2001, pp. 747 et seq. , defends the liability of the traveller for damage that may occur to such property unless it is due to a fraudulent act or omission of the hotelier himself or his employees, we understand that this liability would be extendable even for negligent or culpable acts since the violation