NETHERLANDS | NICK DE LEEUW, JUDITH TERSTEEG, PETER VOS 505 Nor has the Dutch legislator made use of the opportunity of using an expiry period for the submission of claims pursuant to Title 7A which is longer than two years [Article 14(6) of the Directive]. This is beneficial to organisers, even though two years is still a long time. After all, they often work with local (foreign) travel service providers and if something happens at the location, it will often be impossible to determine what has happened once two years have expired. 2.3. Most important comments 2.3.1. SCOPE: BUSINESS AND PLEASURE? The principle of the Directive, and, therefore, also of Dutch legislation, is that so-called business trips are also covered by the scope of the Act, unless there is a “general agreement” between the (professional) traveller and the trader. Small enterprises require similar protection as consumers, based on the Directive16. Arguments can be made in favour of this. The opted solution, where a general agreement (often called a framework agreement) has be used to keep business trips out of the scope of the Act, is not a very good one. A travel agency may even have an easier time having an SME (the local butcher) accept a general agreement than a multinational (like Philips or Unilever). Assuming that the SME concluded a general agreement in which the Act on Travel Agreements has been excluded, its business trips will not fall within the scope of the Directive and the Act. The multinational with considerably more economic power which rejects such general agreement does enjoy the full protection offered to consumers. It seems obvious to us that the SME should enjoy this protection, not the multinational. We believe that the distinction used in the Directive and the Act (the general agreement) to determine which professional traveller is offered protection by the Directive/Act is erroneous. It is also unclear what this “general agreement” should entail. The Dutch legislator does not impose any additional (formal) requirements for such general agreement. The Explanatory Memorandum states that professional travellers who make use of such general agreement do not require legal protection because “such general agreement already offers sufficient protection to the traveller”. The legislator does not indicate how. The Directive uses slightly different phrasing; the argument that the general agreement offers sufficient protection to the traveller is not present 16 Directive 2015/22302 recital 7.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==