Tourism Law in Europe

24 prevención especiales y más rigurosas ” 53 . This implies understanding and presuming that, although de facto there is a real lack of knowledge of the host, it is understood and presumed that the host knows what goods accompany the traveller and, under Article 1783 CC, will be liable for their damage or disappearance. The importance of this detailed knowledge may be trivial to those effects which, due to their use and value, must be available to the traveller in his room, but it must also be so with regard to other goods of special value such as cameras, mobiles, tablets, laptops, etc., which are in regular use by the traveller, which are in regular use by the traveller, since, in short, with regard to these, the host must assume a general control or surveillance when they are inside the room, preventing a third party from gaining access to them by violating the security measures which, with greater rigour, are being imposed by the different autonomous community regulations. Following the same reasoning, it is also irrelevant to have full and detailed knowledge of the money and certain goods of special value which the traveller carries with him and which, unless the host recommends otherwise, are allowed or recommended to be kept in the individual safety deposit box, since also concerning these, the minimum security service imposed on the employer would prevent third parties from accessing the box itself. Precisely as far as these individual safety deposit boxes are concerned, there is no exemption of liability clause, although this seemed to be permitted by the Ministerial Order of 1968 when it allowed the exclusion of the employer's liability for the objects kept in the individual safety deposit box unless the disappearance of the effects kept in it was due to the malice of the employer or his employees. The truth is that, given our system of sources, it is unthinkable to accept an exemption of this type, since, after all, it is not only contrary to the CC itself, both about the necessary deposit, and to compliance with what has been expressly agreed and what derives from 53 The interpretation of the requirement to inform the hotelier of the effects introduced cannot be so rigorous as to require that each and every one of those effects of special value be expressly declared on entering the establishment, so that the owner of the establishment can adopt the necessary preventive measures and give the client the necessary instructions for their adequate protection and security. However, it is not necessary to make an express declaration about those other effects of personal use and not of special value, which constitute the contents of objects necessary for the customer's daily activity (for example clothes, toiletries, the suitcase itself, keys to the house, car, etc.), because by their very nature they do not require the adoption of special and more rigorous precautionary or preventive measures (author’s translation).