Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

1004 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE travel contract, since Article 12 of the Travel Directive regulates the travel organiser to terminate the contract, only in specific cases, in which he has a right not to pay any compensation for the termination. This reflects the idea explained in paragraph 32 of the preamble that “in specific situations, the organiser should also be entitled to terminate the package travel contract before the start of the package without paying compensation, for instance if the minimum number of participants is not reached and where that possibility has been reserved in the contract. In that event, the organiser should refund all payments made in respect of the package” . However, Article 12 of the Directive does not indicate the general right of the travel organiser to terminate the contract. Taking into account that the same Article of the Directive grants the right to the traveller (Article 12 (1)), and it is in silence concerning the travel organiser, it would be illogical to consider that the Directive has the intention to create the same right to the travel organiser. Therefore, it is questionable whether the mentioned national regulation is in line with the Travel Directive. The rules on the alteration of the package travel contract terms were implemented into Article 6.752 of the Civil Code. It can be noted that in Article 6.752 (1) it is clearly stated that the organiser has a right to change the package travel contract terms only when all conditions, stated in that article, are met. In contrast, Article 11 (1) of the Travel Directive does not make clear whether these conditions are alternative or cumulative. However, it can be presumed that these criteria are cumulative and that the national legislator did not introduce the higher standard of protection. It is worth mentioning that the Travel Directive uses the notion of insignificant changes when the national legislator transposed that as not essential. It is still left to see if this difference will be problematic, in practice. The alteration of the price rules was transposed into Article 6.752 of the Civil Code. National law does not impose the requirement that the right to increase the price of the package has to be expressly stated in the contract, merely stating that “this right has to be stated in the contract”. It should be noted that it could difficult interpretations for the courts and make it more difficult for the consumers to defend their rights. According to Article 10 (1) of the Travel Directive, “Member States shall ensure that after the conclusion of the package travel contract, prices may be increased only if the contract expressly reserves that possibility and states that the traveller is entitled to price reduction under paragraph 4”. The wording of this norm supposes that the right to increase the price is dependent upon two