24. 4. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 102/27 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on package travel, including package 
holidays and package tours (*) 
(89/C 102/17) 
On 7 April 1988 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 100 A of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Committee instructed its Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and 
Consumer Affairs to prepare its work on the matter. The Section adopted its Opinion on 
31 January 1989 (rapporteur: Mr Vassilaras). 
At its 263rd plenary session (meeting of 23 February 1989) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted by 78 votes for, 5 against and 5 abstentions, the following Opinion. 
1. General comments — the need to dispense justice expeditiously to the 
consumer/tourist on the one hand, and the 
organizer/retailer on the other, and indeed to the 
parties to disputes within the travel trade itself, 1.1. The Committee endorses the draft Directive as 
being in line with the 'new impetus for consumer protec­
tion policy' and as a step in a series of directives and 
regulations which will be needed to ensure consumer 
protection on the establishment of a just equilibrium 
between the interests of consumers and those of the 
travel trade. 
1.2. The Committee is particularly pleased to note 
that many points from its earlier Opinions, (a) on initial 
guidelines for a Community policy on tourism (2) and 
(b) on Community action in the tourism sector (3) have 
been taken into account. 
1.3. The Committee recognizes that the present pro­
posal is deliberately restricted to the protection of the 
consumer in the context of package travel, but draws 
attention to the necessity of a more thorough examin­
ation of related problems when drawing-up Opinions 
on future referrals, for example that on 'Tourism— 
5-year action programme' which is expected shortly. 
1.4. Specifically the Committee considers that the 
following points require examination: 
— the need for common standards not only for pack­
age travel but also for the full range of tourist 
activities as is shown by an examination of the 
summary of legislation in the Member States set out 
in the Commission document, and in particular the 
legislation governing the organizers and retailers of 
package travel, the problem of overbooking, and 
the position of the hotelier who is at the end of 
the chain in any given tour arrangement, and the 
difficulties caused by the development of the so-
called 'bucket-shop' operators, 
(') OJ No C 96, 12. 4. 1989, p. 5. 
(2) OJ No C 358, 31. 12. 1983. 
(•') OJ No C 328, 22. 12. 1986. — the coverage of professionals in the travel trade who 
are currently subject to existing, non harmonized, 
contract law in the different Member States, 
— the introduction of a simpler procedure under the 
Hague Convention to facilitate international access 
to the courts approved by the Committee in 1987 (4), 
— the possibility of introducing a voluntary code of 
practice in the field of tourism within the spirit of 
the Committee's Opinion on the producer-con­
sumer dialogue (5), even though such codes should 
be watched carefully as existing codes in this field 
have been subject to criticism, 
— on examination of what steps might be taken to 
ensure fair competition within the travel trade itself, 
— the establishment of a guarantee fund at Com­
munity level, as the operation of such funds in 
certain Member States is generally considered to be 
satisfactory. 
1.5. The Committee emphasizes that continuous 
research will be needed to ensure that equitable sol­
utions are found to problems set out above and to 
ensure that the whole process of harmonization takes 
place within the context of the achievement of the 
internal market by 1992, and in the light of the estimate 
that by the year 2000 tourism will constitute one of the 
more important economic activities of the Community. 
1.6. The Committee also draws attention to the 
Commission's current aim to ensure that consumer and 
environment policies are integrated into other Com­
munity policies as set out in the relevant Commission 
documents (6). 
(4) OJ No C 83, 30. 3. 1987. 
(5) OJ No C 206, 6. 8. 1984. 
(6) (i) New impetus for consumer protection policy (COM(85) 
314 final); (ii) 4th environment action programme 1987-1992 
(OJ No C 328, 7. 12. 1987). 
No C 102/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 24. 4. 89 
1.6.1. In the context of tourism, therefore, the Com­
mission should note that package travel must be seen 
as a factor which must interface with the rights and 
obligations of both tourism professionals and the tour­
ist as consumer e.g. with consumer safety, with the 
prevention of damage to tourist facilities. 
1.6.2. The Commission should also concern itself 
with the need to prevent environmental and cultural 
damage through tourism, e.g. damage to beaches and 
to water, damage to historical monuments. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 1 
The proposal does not specifically explain what distinc­
tions (if any) exist in its application to the following 
categories of package travel: 
— travel originating in a Member State but with a 
destination outside the EC, 
— travel originating in a non-EC country but with a 
destination within the EC, 
— travel originating in a non-EC country with a desti­
nation in another non-EC country, but advertized 
within the EC (e.g. travel from America to Australia 
advertized within the EC). 
The Committee is concerned that, if this subject is not 
clarified, there is a risk of distortion of competition. 
2.2. Article 2 
a) The Committee agrees with the definitions of 'pack­
age', 'retailer', 'consumer' and 'the contract'. 
b) The Committee is not satisfied with the definition 
of the term 'organizer' as it does not include non­
professional organizers such as private clubs, as is 
indicated by the phrase in the definition that the 
organizer is 'the person who in the course of his 
business organizes the package ...'. The fact that this 
definition is that used in the Brussels Convention 
of 1970 is counterbalanced by the fact that this 
Convention has only been ratified by two Member 
States (Belgium and Italy) and is described in the 
original Commission Guidelines on tourism as 
'inadequate'. The Committee would like to see this 
definition re-examined. Further, the words 'to the 
public generally' should be deleted as they would 
exclude from the scope of the Directive package 
tours marketed to particular age or interest groups. 
c) The Committee also suggests that the Commission 
consider preparing and including a definition of 'destination', which would cover the total of wel­
come services provided at the place to which the 
tourist/consumer is travelling. 
2.3. Article 3 
2.3.1. The Committee considers that the proposed 
Directive should make it clear whether it applies to all 
package tours whether publicly advertized or not. 
2.3.2. Where the package tour is advertized the Com­
mittee regards it as necessary for the Member States to 
ensure that all descriptive matter published or publi­
cized by the organizer or the retailer concerning a 
package holiday etc. is legible, understandable and 
accurate and contains the necessary clear up-to-date 
information specified in paragraphs (a) to (f) of this 
Article. Any exceptional obligations for tourists (e.g. 
on the admission of pets) should also be specified. 
The Committee regards tourist organizations and the 
relevant interest groups, including consumer organiz­
ations, as well as governments, as the most suitable 
bodies to check on such descriptive matter. As far as 
TV publicity is concerned, the Committee requests the 
Commission to examine the legal implications of selling 
package travel by teleshopping and specifically in the 
context of its previous work on doorstep selling. 
2.4. Article 4(3) 
2.4.1. This paragraph provides for the transfer of 
bookings from one consumer to another for certain 
specified 'serious reasons' (such as sickness and bereave­
ment). 
However, the Committee is of the opinion that it should 
be possible to transfer bookings from one tourist/con­
sumer to another provided that all additional costs 
actually incurred are compensated for. 
2.5. Article (4)(a) 
Under the heading 'Exchange rates', the Committee is 
aware that tourist/consumers feel particularly aggrieved 
in respect of price increases due to exchange rate and 
rises in fuel costs and notes that these are never applied 
in the consumer's favour. It urges the Commission to 
reexamine this subject and put forward proposals to 
ensure greater transparency and equitable solutions for 
both organizer/retailer and tourist/consumer. Perhaps 
the use of the ECU as a basis might offer a solution. 
2.6. Article 4(5) 
2.6.1. As indicated in paragraph 2.5 the Committee 
believes that price increases are rarely if ever justifiable 
and would expect some modification of item (a) in the 
24. 4. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 102/29 
light of the Commission's further examination of the 
matter. 
2.6.2. Item (b) should be worded in a less general 
way and should permit the consumer to withdraw from 
the contract if changes are made prior to departure 
and without his consent to important clauses of the 
contract, such as departure or return dates, the depar­
ture airport or the resort or hotel category originally 
booked. 
2.6.3. The Committee agrees with clause (c) whereby 
the consumer is entitled to withdraw without penalty 
from the contract 'if there is an unreasonable delay in 
departure, howsoever caused, otherwise than by his 
own fault'. However it will be necessary for Member 
States' legislation, and therefore for the Council Direc­
tive, to stipulate more precisely the manner in which 
this principle should be applied. Possibly a delay in 
departure in excess of 24 hours would be sufficient to 
justify withdrawal from the contract while delays of 
between 12 and 24 hours might be the subject of monet­
ary compensation. The Committee recognizes that this 
may be to the disadvantage of the organizer, but con­
siders that in such circumstances the organizer should 
be enabled to claim against the carrier. 
Also, the Commission would need to check the wording 
of the Article in the different language versions. In 
some, the word 'unreasonable' appears as 'unjustifi­
able'. 
2.7. Article 4(6) 
2.7.1. First indent 
This indent should be revised to read as follows 
(revision in bold type): 
'If the ... organizer cancels the package before the 
agreed date of departure, the consumer is entitled 
at his option: ...' 
2.7.2. Article 4(6) (II) 
Force majeure has little significance in the laws of the 
Member States and must be defined in the Directive. 
2.7.3. Article 4 (8) 
The following phrase should be inserted as sub­
paragraph (8) at the end of Article 4: 
'That there should be a recognized scale of compen­
sation, within agreed Community limits, due to the 
traveller if changes are made to booked arrange­
ments and that the scale should be published in the 
brochure.' 2.8. Article 5(2) 
2.8.1. Article 5 
The Committee welcomes the proposal that tour oper­
ators accept liability and responsibility for the quality 
of their services as manufacturers and/or retailers 
already do for their goods. 
The Committee recognizes that simple consumer access 
to justice is essential for the completion of the internal 
market and notes that the tour operator is in a much 
stronger position than the individual holiday maker 
to recover damages from hotels or transport carriers, 
particularly where health and safety are concerned. 
2.8.2. The Committee nonetheless feels that 
Article 5(2) should make it clear to the consumers where 
liability lies in individual cases. 
Further, the Committee regrets that neither in Article 5 
nor in the explanatory memorandum does the Com­
mission address the important associated questions of 
limitation of liability (whether by reference to the con­
tract of carriage or a single maximum figure) and the 
relevance or otherwise of fault or negligence on the part 
of the tour operator or his subcontractors. 
2.8.3. Under Article 5, 'Commentary on the Articles', 
it is stated that an organizer is expected to use 'proper 
care and skill' in selecting an agent in a non-EEC 
country. In some cases the organizer may be limited in 
his choice (e.g. Intourist in USSR) and it is not clear 
from the Directive what remedies an EC organizer 
would have against such an organization. 
2.9. Article 6 
2.9.1. The Committee recognizes that the concept 
behind Article 6 providing for the redress of consumers' 
complaints was originally suggested by the Committee 
itself in an earlier Opinion. 
2.9.2. On reflexion, however, the Committee now 
feels that a corresponding right of defence should be 
allowed to the organizer/retailer, and asks the Com­
mission to put forward proposals for international arbi­
tration, perhaps through an independent ombudsman 
which would be available to both sides in a dispute, 
but nevertheless taking into account existing arbitration 
procedures at Member State level, and recommending 
that local tourist authorities should be extended or 
established to investigate complaints. However, the 
Committee would stress that the individual traveller 
should not be placed at a disadvantage by limited 
financial resources. 
2.10. Article 7 
2.10.1. The Committee welcomes the proposal in 
Article 7 that Member States shall ensure that organ-
No C 102/30 Official Journal of the European Communities 24. 4. 89 
izers cover by insurance that part of their liability which 
is insurable. 
Could the Commission define more precisely what is 
or is not insurable and what is the position of the 
organizer in respect of the non-insurable part of his 
liability ? 
2.11. (a) The Committee points out that package travel 
has developed into a major business because it gives 
value for money over a range of options; it should 
continue to flourish if it continues to give good value 
and be well organized. 
(b) The Committee notes that the Commission esti­
mates the cost of insuring for liability under the current 
proposal is minimal but points out that while consumers 
may be willing to pay such minimal additional charges 
Done at Brussels, 23 February 1989. necessary to cover essential consumer protection, there 
is as yet no recognized standard as to what constitutes 
'minimal' cost. The Commission should investigate this 
matter further before taking definite conclusions. 
2.12. The Committee recognizes the possibility that 
package travel might price itself out of the market by 
excessive increases in costs which might restrict tourism 
within the Community and have the effect of diverting 
mass tourism away from the EEC to destinations out­
side the Community, but does not consider this an 
argument for depriving the tourist/consumer of the 
protection envisaged in the current proposal. 
2.13. Finally, the Committee hopes that the actions 
envisaged during the forthcoming European tourism 
year will lead to greater transparency for consumer 
problems and to their eventual solution. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE