Implementation of the package travel directive.
Date: 2016-01-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union
Subjects: application of EU law, consumer protection, directive (EU), electronic commerce, financial solvency, independent retailer, trade intermediary, travel agency, traveller

 
DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES 

POLICY DEPARTMENT A: SCIENTIFIC AND ECONOMIC POLICY 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE  
PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE 

STUDY 

Abstract 
This  study  provides  an  updated  evaluation  of  the  Package  Travel  Directive. 
Firstly, the implementation of the Directive – especially though the current state 
of  play  in  the  new  Member  States  –  is  analysed.  Particular  aspects  of  the 
Directive  are  treated,  such  as  the  problem  of  the  travel  provider  becoming 
insolvent,  issues  relating  to  intermediaries  and  travel  not  regulated  by  the 
Directive.  Secondly,  proposals  are  treated.  The  Directive  is  evaluated  from  the 
perspectives  of  stakeholders  and  consumers.  An  update  is  given  on  the  latest 
relevant  legislative  developments.  This  includes,  specifically,  the  Consumer 
Rights Directive and the proposal for a European Sales Law in e-commerce. As a 
result,  specific  overarching  proposals  are  made  which  may  remedy  the  issues 
addressed.   

IP/A/IMCO/ST/2011-17 
PE 475.084 

  March 2012 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This  document  was  requested  by  the  European  Parliament's  Committee  on  the  Internal 
Market and Consumer Protection 

AUTHOR(S) 
Prof. Dr. Hans Schulte-Nölke (Author) 
Anne-Kathrin Barutta (Co-Author) 
Shaun Charlton (Co-Author) 
Julia Henning (Co-Author) 
Elisabeth Spiecker gen. Döhmann (Co-Author) 
European Legal Studies Institute Osnabrück 

RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR 
Elke Ballon 
Policy Department A: Scientific and Economic Policy 
European Parliament 
B-1047 Brussels 
E-mail: Poldep-Economy-Science@europarl.europa.eu 

LINGUISTIC VERSIONS 

Original: [EN] 

ABOUT THE EDITOR 

To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to:  
UUUUPoldep-Economy-Science@europarl.europa.eu 

Manuscript completed in March 2012. 
Brussels, © European Union, 2012. 

This document is available on the Internet at: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies 

DISCLAIMER 

The  opinions  expressed  in  this  document  are  the  sole  responsibility  of  the  author  and  do 
not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. 

Reproduction  and  translation  for  non-commercial  purposes  are  authorized,  provided  the 
source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

CONTENTS 

Contents 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

Executive SUMMARY 

Implementation and reform

 of the package Travel Directive 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION 

IMPLEMENTATION 

2.1.  Generally

2.2.  New Me

mber States 

 application of concepts used in the Directive 

2.2.1.  Scope of
2.2.2.  Measures of consumer protection 
The Im lementation of Article 7 

p

Interm diaries 
e

2.3. 

2.4. 

2.5. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

2.4.1. 
2.4.2. 
2.4.3.  Conclusion: Proposal: A EU label indicating consumer protection 
Travel 

Initial Position and Demand for steps taken in favour of the consumer 16 
17 
The situation today 
19 
19 

ope of the Directive 

lling outside the sc

fa

2.5.1.  Small package travel 
2.5.2. 

Individual travel services 

3. 

REFOR  
M

3.1.  Weakness
remedies 

es of the Directive as seen 

by stakeholders and possible 

The issues at stake 

3.1.1. 
3.1.2.  Re
An Upd te on the Latest Le

a

commendations and an evaluation of their importance 

gislative Developments 

Improvements in the light of the Consumer Rights Directiv

e 

3.2.1. 
3.2.2. 
sales la  31 
Overar hing proposals for Reform: greater clarity 

w

c

The latest legislative developments as regards e-commerce: European 

3.3.1.  Clar
3.3.2.  A European Travel Code ? 

ity for intermediaries: An EU label 

4. 

GENER L CONCLUSION 

A

Referen

ces 

AN

NEX 

3 

4 

5 

8 

8 

9 

9 

9 

9 
10 
15 

16 

19 
20 

21 

21 

21 
29 
30 

31 

32

32 
33 

33 

35 

37 

3 

PE 475.084 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

Art.  Article 

B2B  Business-to-business 

BGB  German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) 

CC  Civil Code 

COM  Commission Staff Working Document 

CRD  Consumer Rights Directive  

ECJ   European Court of Justice 

etc.  et cetera 

EU  European Union  

EUR 

Euro 

ibid. 

ibidem; repetition of the same citation 

i.e.  id est; that is 

No.  Number 

p.   page 

et seq.  et sequitur; and the following 

UCP  Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

UTCC   Directive on Unfair terms in Consumer Contracts 

PE 475.084 

4 

 
 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Background 

o

a
e

ir  pack
er  Stat

modati n  packaged  by  a  single 

ive 90/31
l Direc
t
  two  dec
d  over

C
4/EEC on Package Travel and Holiday Tours (“the Directive”) was 
ounci
adopte
ades  ago.  The  Directive  seeks  mainly  to  protect  parties  who 
purchase  holiday  packages,  which  generally  take  the  form  of  travel  and  overnight 
accom
provider.  It  does  this  by  providing  a  minimum 
harmonised level of protection of package travellers against the organisers and retailers 
opean  Union  of  13 
of  the
Memb
Directive  by  13 
December  1992.1  This  was  the  first  wave  of  the  Directive’s  implementation.  With  the 
  the  “new  Member  States” 
major  e
were  required  to  transpose  European  Union  law  into  their  national  legal  systems.3  As  a 
enlargement  of  the  European  Union  to  its  present  day  size  of  27  Member 
result
irective has undergone a second life of implem
State
entation in the past decade. 
It  is  the  Directive’s  second  life  which  provides  the  focus  for  this  study’s  analysis  of  the 
way in

ge.  The  Directive  was  originally  conceived  with  a  Eur
s  in  mind  who  were  to  incorporate  the  provisions  of  the 

 which the Directive has been implemente

ement  of  the  EU  in  2004,2

  of  the 
s, the D

nlarg

d. 

cond  m
irectiv

sumers  picking  and

  or  commercial,  the 
  lega
l
  to  the  unravelling 
trend

ajor  development  since  the  ad
e has been the unravelling of th

option  of  the  Package  Travel  and  Holiday 
The  se
e traditional package holiday.  The success 
Tours D
of low-cost airlines and greater access to the internet are but two factors which have led 
to  con
  choosing  various  deals  from  a  variety  of  service  providers  to 
repackage  a  custom-made  holiday.  As  there  is  no  link  between  the  service  providers, 
whether
Directive  affords  no  protection  in  these  instances.  A 
of  the  package  holiday  is  the  so-called  “dynamic 
related 
package”.  An  example  of  dynamic  packaging  being  where  an  internet  platform,  for 
example,  for  booking  flights  will  also  provide  “add-ons”  by  which  the  consumer  can 
contract  for  services  such  as  car-hire,  insurance  or  hotel  accommodation.  Although 
ontracts  with  each  service 
comm
provid
e  is  given  to  consumers  of 
dynamic packaging is consequently unclear, despite limited positive judicial intervention.4 
This  m
e  market  should  be  taken  into  consideration  for  any 
prospective reform of the Directive. 

linked,  it  is  the  consumer  who  individually  c
  extent  to  which  the  protection  of  the  Directiv

ajor  development  in  th

ercially
er.  The

Implementation of the Directive 

a

  choose  the

  The Directive is one of minimum harmonisation. Member States are therefore free 
  form  and  method  for  transposing  a  directive  into  national  law  as 
to
long as the transposition achieves the aims set by the directive. This has resulted 
in  gre t  variety  in  the  mode  of  transposit
ion  (whether  the  law  of  transposition 
takes  the  form  of  a  Code,  a  separate  Act  on  Package  Travel,  or  is  implemented 
throug
f harmonisation, variations in 
the  na
  the  Directive.  Therefore  the 
following  remarks  are  restricted  to  significant  points  of  interest  which  are 
compatible with the Directive unless otherwise stated. 

h secondary legislation). Due to the principle o
tional  laws  are  normally  fully  compatible  with

  Scope of application: 

o  The  new  Member  States  use  different  terms  from  those  used  in  the 
Directive with the exception of ‘package’ where a uniform definition is the 
norm; 

1 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, 
Spain and the United Kingdom. 
2 Although also in 1995 (Finland, Sweden) and 2007 (Bulgaria, Romania). 
3 Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. 
4 ECJ judgment of 30 April 2002, C-400/00 - Club Tour. 

5 

PE 475.084 

 
 
 
                                                
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

o  There is a mixed approach by new Member States to the issue of whether 
commercial  or  non-c
ommercial  interests  are  used  in  defining  terms  used 
by  the  Directive.  Th
e  definition  of  package  “organisers”  is  restricted  in 
so
me Member States to those acting in a commercial interest, whilst other 
Member  States  apply  the  Directive’s  provisions  to  organisers  acting  non-
commercially as well. 

  Measures of consumer protection (equivalencies in substance) 

o  Additional  information  duties:  some  new  Member  States  specify  a 
timeframe for obtaining a passport and visa. The Czech Republic, Estonia 
and  Slovenia  are  the  only  new  Member  States  to  impose  the  duties  only 
on the organiser (Estonia and Slovenia) or travel agency (Czech Republic). 
Specific  timeframes  are  stipulated  in  the  new  Member  States  in  the 
e expression ‘in goo
transposition of the Directiv

d time’.  

o  Limitation  of  price  revision:  while  half  of  the  new  Member  States 
introduced  national  provisions  restricting  price  increase  as  well  as  price 
decrease,  the  other  half  of  the  new  Member  States  have  introduced 
provisions which only restrict price increases. 

o  Consumer  rights:  there  are  divergences  in  the  regime  of  notification  by 
the  consumer  of  the  exercise  of  consumer  rights.  There  is  a  limitation  of 
the  right  of  cancellation  in  Lithuania,  which  is  not  in  conformity  with  the 
Directive. 

  Article  7  –  insolvency:  in  setting  minimum  levels  of  insurance,  which  may  not 
be sufficient to refund the consumer fully, several of the new Member States seem 
to be in non-conformity with the Directive.5 

  Intermediaries 

o  The role of intermediary is decisive in three main areas: (1) the conclusion 
of the contract, and (2) responsibilities and (3) liability to the consumer. 

o  However, the role and the responsibilities of intermediaries are difficult to 
determine  in  the  Member  State  transpositions  through  use  of  the 
expression in the Directive of “organiser and/or retailer”. 

  Travel falling outside the s

cope of the Directive 

o  Small  package  travel:  in  gen

eral,  Member  States  have  not  extended  the 
scope  of  application  of  the  Directive  to  these  packages  where,  for 
instance, the service covers a period up to twenty-four hours or does not 
include  overnight  accommodation.6  In  such  cases,  some  protection  is 
afforded  through  the  general  rules  of  contract  and  the  Unfair  Terms  in 
Consumer Contracts (UTCC) Directive7. However, where non-performance 
of one service has knock-on effects upon the other services contractually 
based  remedies  are  of  no  avail  to  the  disappointed  consumer.  Such  a 
regulatory gap could nonetheless be filled through extending the scope of 
the Directive to small package travel.  

o 

el  services:  are  perhaps  too  far  removed  from  the  specific 
Individual  trav
he  functioning  of  the  market  which  the  Package  Travel 
problems  in  t
Directive was designed to meet. As a result, wholesale reform may not be 
required.  However,  it  may  be  worth  considering  insolvency  protection  for 
individu

al travel services. 

5  ECJ  rulings  of  8  October  1996,  Case  C-178/94  –  Dillenkofer,  and  of  15  June  1999,  Case  C-140/97  - 
Rechberger. 
6  Germany  is  an  exception  where  the  protection  of  the  Directive  is  a
insolvency). 
7 Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on Unfair T

pplied  (excluding  protection  against 

erms in Consumer Contracts. 

PE 475.084 

6 

 
                                                
 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Reform 

 

Evaluating the Directive from the perspective of stakeholders.  

o  The following weaknesses have been noted by stakeholders: the inclusion 
of  dynamic  packaging  within  the  scope  of  the  Directive;  difficulties  in 
interpreting the Directi
ve, especially relating to general key terms such as 
“consumer”,  “organiser”,  “retailer”;  the  non-mandatory  in
corporation  of 
pre-contractual  duties  into  the  contract;  lack  of  clarity  in  relation  to 
specific  aspects  of  the  information  requirements  as  well  as  what 
constitutes  an  essential  term  for  the  purposes  of  withdrawing  and 
cancelling  the  package  travel  contract;  insolvency  regimes  may  create 
barriers to trade. 

o  These  problems  can  mostly  be  resolved  through  greate

r  clarity  in  policy 
decisions.  It  might  be  worth  considering  full  harmonisation  in  the  most 
sensitive  areas  like  pre-contractual  information  duties,  brochures  and 
formal requirements for information duties as well as exclusion of liability 
clauses.  However,  as  past  experience  has  demonstrated,  this  may  prove 
onal legal systems without a 
very difficult to integrate into the existing nati
certain  level  of  completeness  in,  for  example,  the  remedies  granted  to 
consumers  in  cases  of  non-performance  or  defective  performance.  This 
problem must be addressed through further research. 

 

The latest legisla

tive developments 

o  Consumer  Rights  Directive  (“CRD”).  As  the  Directive  was  not  included  in 
the  consolidating  work  of  the  CRD  and  excluded  from  its  scope  of 
s has actually deteriorated in specific 
application, the position of consumer
  Thus,  any  reform  of  the  Directive  needs  to  consider  whether 
instances.
consumers  who  conclude  package  travel  contracts  in  an  off-premises  or 
distance  selling  situation  need  specific  protection.  In  addition  to  the 
d 
former point, it would be desirable for improvements in definition achieve
by the CRD be carried over into any reform of the Directive. 

o  European Sales law. Two points are worthy of interest. Firstly, in relation 
mmon  European 
to  legislative  technique,  the  optional  instrument  on  a  co
an (optional) EU travel code. 
Sales law could provide a useful template for 
Secondly, on a more substantive level, damages for non-material loss, as 
well  as  rules  on  termination,  excuse  or  on  restitution  after  termination 
could  be  provided  for  explicitly  in  a  newly  reformed  directive  on  package 
travel. 

Over

arching proposals for Reform: greater clarity 

 

 

An  EU  label?  Greater  precision  is  needed  in  determining  which  duties  apply  to 
intermediaries. The issue is less who should be responsible in absolute terms, but 
rather clearly determining which person is responsible. A European label could be 
tract  is  governed  by  EU  law  and 
introduced  indicating  that  the  proposed  con
specifically  mentioning  the  persons  against  whom  consumer  remedies  can  be 
pursued. 

A  European  Travel  Code?  A  basic  policy  decision  has  to  be  made  on  whether 
just  consumers  (i.e.  persons  who  are  acting  for  non-commercial  purposes)  or 
d.  Should  reform  of  the  Directive  envisage  an 
every  traveller  should  be  protecte
extension  in  the  scope  of  application  of  the  contracting  party  (the  person 
travelling), then it would be advisable to enact an overarching EU Travel Law. This 
would  take  the  form  of  a  single  law  consolidating  the  existing  patchwork  of 
European  legislation  in  the  area  of  travel  and supplemented  by  generalised  rules 
on  pre-contractual  information  duties,  the  basic  obligations  under  the  most 
rele

vant travel contracts and remedies. 

7 

PE 475.084 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

IMPLEMENTATION AND REFORM OF THE PACKAGE 
TRAVEL DIRECTIVE 

1.

 INTRODUCTION 

aims to provide background information and advice on priority measures and 
be  taken  in  the  field  of  package  travel.  Council  Directive  90/314/EEC  on 
avel  and  Holiday  Tours8  was  adopted  on  23  June  1991  and  needed  to  be 
by  Member  States  by  31  December  1992.  The  Directive  was  designed  to 
t  consumers  who  contract  package  travel  in  the  EU.  It  covered  the  sale  of  a  pre-
rs  were  covered  where  at  least  two  of  these  travel 
ents  were  sold  or  offered  for  sale  at  an  inclusive  price  and  the  service  covered  a 

ombination:  consume

This study 
actions  to 
Package  Tr
transposed 
protec
arranged  c
elem
per

iod of more than twenty-four hours or includes over-night accommodation.  

ere two main regulatory measures contained in the Directive: information duties 
les on the liability of providers of package travel. The Directive prescribed rules on 
formation  that  must  be  given  to  consumers  at  different  points  in  time.  It  thus 
ed specific requirements with regard to the content of brochures where provided 
rmation such as the price, itinerary and formalities in the event of cancellation. In 
  to  liability,  the  Directive  imposed  responsibility  for  the  performance  of  the 
non-performance or 
ell as the duty to help consumers in the 

There w
and ru
the  in
contain
on info
relation
services of
unsatisfactory performance of the contract as w
eventual

fered. This included specifically rules on compensation for 

ity that the package did not go according to plan. 

  assess  the  success  of  the  Package  Travel  Directive  (“the  Directive”),  this 
s  a  full  exposition  of  its  implementation  before  proposals  for  reform  can  be 
  part  on  the  implementation  of  the  Directive  provides  an  overview  of  the 
tate of play, focussing upon its latest implementation in new Member States. It 
cludes specific concepts of the Directive. These are, firstly, the problem of Article 7 
g to security in case of insolvency, then issues relating to intermediaries and finally 
f application, specifically travel which is not covered by the Direc
tive. The part 
begins  with  an  exposé  of  the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the  Directive  as 
by  stakeholders  and  consumers  and  an  update  on  the  latest  legislative 
ts in the field. Concerning this latter point, this includes the Consumer Rights 
nd  the  proposal  for  a  European  Sales  Law  in  e-commerce.  Once  analysed, 
erarching  proposals  which  address  the  issues  can,  finally,  be  made.  This 
lised conclusion for measures and actions to be taken is based upon the need for 
  greater  clarity
  in  the  duties  of  intermediaries  and  the  greater  clarity  as  to  the 
ersons who are protected under the EU regime. The endnote thus begs the question: is 

In  order  to
presuppose
made.  The
current s
also in
relatin
the scope o
on  reform 
perceived 
developmen
Directive  a
specific  ov
genera
clarity:
p
now the time for a European Travel Code?   

8 OJ n° L. 158 of 13 June 1990, page 159. 

PE 475.084 

8 

 
 
 
                                                 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

2.  IMPLEMENTATION 

2.1.  Generally 

heT  Package Travel Directive 90/314/EEC 
has been transposed in all new Member States. 
Member States are free to choose the form and method for transposing a directive into 
national law as long as the transposition achieves the aims set by the directive.9 This is 
the principle of minimum harmonisation. 

ember  States  not  to  have  chosen  this  approach  are  AUSTRIA,  ESTONIA,  GERMA

As a result of the principle of minimum harmonisation and the consequent freedom of the 
Member  States  in  implementing  the  Directive,  the  Member  States’  transpositions  differ 
enormously  in  legislative  technique.  The  majority  of  the  Member  States  chose  to 
transpose  the  Directive’s  provisions  through  a  special  act  on  package  travel.  The  only 
M
NY,  ITALY, 
THE  NETHERLANDS  and  SLOVENIA.  These  Member  States  chose  to  transpose  the  Directive’s 
provisions in more general regulations like the Civil Code (GERMANY and SLOVENIA as well 
as  CZECH  REPUBLIC,  HUNGARY,  LITHUANIA  and  SLOVAKIA),  Consumer  Codes  (AUSTRIA  and 
ITALY),  the  Law  of  Obligations  (ESTONIA  and  SLOVENIA),  Tourism  Act  (ESTONIA  as  well  as 
BULGARIA,  FRANCE,  LATVIA  and  LITHUANIA)  or  others  (AUSTRIA,  ESTONIA  and  SLOVENIA). 
Another  way  of  transposing  the  Directive’s  provisions  is  by  government  decree,  which 
was chosen among AUSTRIA, DENMARK, FINLAND, GERMANY, HUNGARY, LUXEMBOURG, LATVIA, THE 
NETHERLANDS and PORTUGAL.10 

he principle of minimum harmonisation is also stated expr

essly in the Directive’s Recital. 
T
Thus, Member States are at liberty to adopt, or retain, more stringent provisions relating 
to package travel for the purpose of protecting the consumer. Therefore, most deviations 
from  the  Directive  fully  conform  to  the  Directive  and  this  is  the  case  with  the  account 
given of the implementation by new Member States.  

The  focus  of  the  current  state  of  play  of  the  implementation  of  the  Package  Travel 
Directives  must  lie  on  the  new  Member  States.  A  full  analysis  of  the  first  wave  of 
implementations  is  available  elsewhere.11  Over  the  past  ten  years  many  states  have 
joined  the  European  Union.  These  new  Member  States  are  CYPRUS,  CZECH  REPUBLIC, 
ESTONIA,  HUNGARY,  LITHUANIA,  LATVIA,  MALTA,  POLAND,  SLOVAKIA  and  SLOVENIA,  which  joined 
the European Union in 2004, as well as BULGARIA and ROMANIA, which joined the European 
Union  in  2007.  As  there  has  not  been  an  analysis  of  the  Directive’s  implementation  in 
these Member States, the following up-to-date analysis will focus on them. 

2.2.  New Member States 

2.2.1.  Scope of application of concepts use

d in the Directive 

In  some  cases,  the  Member  States  provide  a  wider  scope  of  application  in  the  field  of 
package  travel  by  broadening  the  notion  of  ‘organiser’  (Art.  2(2))  or  ‘package’  (Art. 
2(1)). Most Member States made use of the minimum clause and of the options provided 
for in Art. 5(2)(4) of the Directive. 

The  terms  ‘consumer’,  ‘organiser’,  ‘retailer’,  ‘package’  and  ‘contract’  as  provided  by  the 
Directive are not always used in the transposition laws of the Member States. Among the 
new Member States the majority have used different terms for ‘consumer’, ‘organiser’ and 
‘retailer’.  In  the  case  of  the  terms  ‘consumer’  and  ‘organiser’,  some  of  the  new  Member 

9 Art. 288(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 
10 For further information on the national transposition laws: http://www.eu-consumer-law.org/.  
11 see: Report on the Implementation of Directive 90/314/Estonia on Package Travel and Holiday Tours in the 
SEC(1999) 1800 final]. 
Domestic Legislation of EC Member States [

9 

PE 475.084 

 
 
                                                
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

12  ‘consumer’  as  well  as  ‘tourist’;  LATVIA: 
erm  (ROMANIA
States  have  used  more  than  one  t
‘operator’ as well as ‘undertaking’).
 Only regarding the term ‘package’ have the majority of 
the new Member States used the term as formulated in the Directive. Different terms used 
by the other new Mem
ber States are ‘tourist travel with general price’ (BULGARIA), ‘tourist 
13 and LITHUANIA have 
ev
ent’ (POLAND) or ‘excu
rsion’ (CZECH REPUBLIC and SLOVAKIA). HUNGARY
used  the  term  ‘package’  as  well  as  the  term  ‘travel  contract’.  Most  of  the  new  Member 
14  and  LITHUANIA  have  used  a 
States  have  used  a  single  definition  of  ‘contract’.  HUNGARY
combined definition of ‘contract’ and ‘package’, whereas SLOVENIA has used ‘package’ in the 
definition  of  contract.  ESTONIA  and  POLAND  have  no  specific  legislative  transposition  for 
‘c

ontract’. 

The majority of the new Member States have deviated from the contents of the Directive’s 
definitions  for  ‘retailer’,  ‘package’  and  ‘contract’.  Almost  all  new  Member  States  have 
deviated  from  the  content  of  the  definition  for  ‘organiser’.  While  CYPRUS,  CZECH  REPUBLIC, 
15 have not introduced an explicit 
ESTONIA, HUNGARY, POLAND, ROMANIA, SLOVAKIA and SLOVENIA
requirement of acting other than occasionally, other new Member States have introduced a 
restriction  to  commercial  persons  (CZECH  REPUBLIC,  ESTONIA,  HUNGARY,  LITHUANIA,  POLAND, 
16  has  also  introduced  a 
SLOVAKIA  and  SLOVENIA)  or  specialized  agency  (ROMANIA).  HUNGARY
qualified  exclusion  of  not-for-profit  organisations.  Only  regarding  the  content  of  the 
definition  for  ‘consumer’,  have  the  majority  of  the  new  Member  States  transposed  the 
content of the definition in a substantively equivalent manner to the Directive. Deviations 
have  only  been  made  by  POLAND,  which  has  excluded  professionals  from  the  definition  of 
17, which have not explicitly transposed the 
‘consumer’, and HUNGARY, LITHUANIA and LATVIA
second and third part of the D

irective’s definition. 

2.2.2.  Measures of consumer protection 

 

Information duties 

Information duties have been regulated in detail in the Directive. The Directive contains 
provisions  about  information  in  travel  brochures,  p
re-contractual  information  duties, 
in
formation  before  the  start  of  the  journey,  elements  that  have  to  be  included  in  the 
contract,  information  requirements  with  regard  to  all  terms  of  the  contract,  a  general 
prohibition  of  misleading  information  and  sanctions  for  non-compliance  with  the 
information duties. 

The  information  duties  concerning  travel  brochures  are  regulated  in  Art.  3(2)(1)  of  the 
Package Travel Directive. The majority of the new Member States have used a different 
term than the term 'brochure' as used in the Directive. ESTONIA is the only new Member 
State  to  have  transposed  the  information  requirements  in  a  substantia
lly  equivalent 
m
anner to the Directive. The majority of the new Member States chose to go beyond the 
standards  set  substantively  in  th
e  Directive  by  introducing  additional  information 
requirements. 

rt.  4(1)(a)  of  the  Package  Travel  Directive  provides  provisions  for  pre-contractual 
A
information duties concerning passport and visa requirements and health formalities. All 
new  Member  States  have  transposed  these  information  duties.  Except  for  HUNGARY, 
ROMANIA  and  SLOVENIA,  the  majority  of  the  new  Member  States  have  also  introduced 
provisions  concerning  the  timeframe  for  obtaining  a  passport  and  visa.  The  majority  of 
troduced  additional  information  requirements  to  be 
n

ew  Member  States  have  also  in

12  The definition in Art. 2(4) Law 631 of 16 November 2001 uses the term ‘consumer’ while other regulations, 
e.g. Art. 15 of the same law, mention the term ‘tourist’. 
13  Government Decree No. 214/1996 uses the term ‘travel contract’ when transposing the definition of 
‘package’, in contrast to the definition in Decree No. 213/1996. 
14  § 415-416 of the CC contains general rules with respect to travel contracts; Government Decrees No. 
213/1996 and 214/1996 establish special rules. 
15  The Code of Obligations does not define who an organiser is. However, the Promotion of Tourism 
 sole trader or a legal pers n. 
Development Act defines who may be an organiser/seller of tourism: a
16  Article 1(4) of the Government Decree No. 213/1996. 
17  It is unclear whether the definition of ‘client’ also covers the transferee of a travel package purchased by a 
third person.  

o

PE 475.084 

10 

 
 
                                                 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

provided  before  the  conclusion  of  the  contract,  whereas  exemptions  have  only  been 
introduced in BULGARIA, ESTONIA, HUNGARY and SLOVENIA. The majority of the new Member 
States have imposed the duty of providing information on the organiser and/or retailer, 
as stated in the Directive. CZECH REPUBLIC, ESTONIA and SLOVENIA are the only new Member 
States to impose the duty only on the organiser (ESTONIA and SLOVENIA) or travel agency 
(CZECH REPUBLIC). In all new Member States, the information must be provided before the 
conclusion  of  the  contract,  in  accordance  with  the  Directive.  Most  new  Member  States 
deviated  from  the  Directive's  method  for  providing  the  information,  providing  that  the 
information  may  only  be  given  in  written  form  (BULGARIA,  LITHUANIA  and  POLAND),  in  a 
format which can be reproduced in writing (ESTONIA), or in a brochure, or in other written 
form (CZECH REPUBLIC, HUNGARY and SLOVAKIA).  

According  to  Art.  4(1)(b)  of  the  Package  Travel  Directive,  certain  information  has  to  be 
provided before the start of the journey. While most of the new Member States followed 
the  Directive  by  imposing  the  obligation  on  the  organiser  and/or  retailer,  there  is  no 
specific transposition of this requirement in LATVIA. Nevertheless, LITHUANIAN law includes 
all  the  information  duties  in  Art.  4(1)(b)  of  the  Directive  in  the  requirements  to  be 
fulfilled  before  the  contract  is  concluded.18  Some  of  the  new  Member  States  have 
introduced  a  more  specific  timeframe  in  which  the  information  has  to  be  provided,  for 
19,  HUNGARY  and  SLOVAKIA)  or  7  working  days 
example  7  calendar  days  (CZECH  REPUBLIC
(BULGARIA)  before  the  start  of  the  journey.  The  majority  of  the  new  Member  States 
require  the  information  to  be  provided  only  in  written  form,  thereby  deviating  from  the 
Directive.  In  CZECH  REPUBLIC  and  ESTONIA  no  special  form  is  necessary.  ESTONIA,  POLAND 
ion requirements listed in the Directive. 
and SLOVENIA have not transposed all the informat
While  the  majority  of  the  new  Member  States  have  introduced  additional  information 
20, 
requirements,  exemptions  have  only  bee
21. 
ESTONIA and SLOVAKIA

n  introduced  in  BULGARIA,  CZECH  REPUBLIC

In  Art.  4(2)(a)  of  the  Package  Travel  Directive  it  is  stipulated  that  the  contract  shall 
contain  at  least  the  elements  listed  in  the  Annex  of  the  Directive.  Information  on  the 
itinerary, services included in the package price, the package price itself and information 
on  deadlines  for  lodging  a  complaint  due  to  improper  or  non-performance  are  the 
elements  listed  in  the  Directive's  Annex  that  have  been  transposed  in  all  of  the  new 
GARY,  LITHUANIA,  MALTA,  SLOVAKIA  and  SLOVENIA  have  not  transposed 
Member  States.  HUN
all  of  the  elements  listed  in  the  Directive's  Annex.  Except  for  ESTONIA,  all  new  Member 
States  have  also  introduced  additional  elements.  HUNGARY,  SLOVAKIA  and  SLOVENIA  have 
also  introduced  exemptions.  In  the  majority  of  the  new  Member  States  the  elements 
have  to  be  included  in  the  travel  contract,  as  stipulated  in  the  Directive.  However,  a 
22,  where  the  elements  must 
different  approach  has  been  taken  in  ESTONIA  and  SLOVENIA
be included in a confirmation document. 

ND  and  SLOVENIA,  the  national  laws  of  the  new  Member  States  stipulate 
Except  for  POLA
that  all  the  terms  of  the  contract  must  be  communicated  to  the  consumer  before  the 
conclusion  of  the  contract,  following  Art.  4(2)(b)  of  the  Package  Travel  Directive.  The 
alternative  given  by  the  Directive,  of  providing  the  contract  in  another  form  that  is 
23, 
comprehensible  to  the  consumer,  has  only  been  transposed  in  BULGARIA,  HUNGARY
LATVIA  and  LITHUANIA.  In  ROMANIA,  the  contract  may  also  be  presented  in  the  form  of  a 
catalogue, folder or other written form.24 Exemptions have been introduced in general in 
MALTA  and  in  case  of  last-minute  booking,  as  in  accordance  with  Art.  4(2)(c)  of  the 
Package Travel Directive, by CYPRUS and SLOVAKIA.  

18  Article 5 of the Cabinet Regulation No. 163. 
19  CC sec. 852d(1).  
20  CC sec. 852(2). 
21  If the contract is concluded less than 7 days before departure.  
22  Equally possible in a travel programme.  
23  § 2(4) of the Government Decree No. 214/1996 rules that the contract must be in writing.  
24  Article 12(4) of the Government Ordinance 107/1999 on package travel as approved and amended by Law 
631 of 16 Nove

mber 2001. 

11 

PE 475.084 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

The  majority  of  the  new  Member  States  have  transposed  a  general  prohibition  of 
misleading  information  substantially  equivalent  to  Art.  3(1)  of  the  Package  Travel 
Directive. Variations have been introduced in CZECH REPUBLIC, LATVIA and SLOVAKIA, where 
the  information  given  must  be  accurate,  complete,  clear  and  precise  (LATVIA)  or  where 
the consumer must be provided with exact, clear, correct and truthful information (CZECH 
REPUBLIC and SLOVAKIA). 

CYPRUS,  HUNGARY  and  MALTA  have  also  introduced  sanctions  in  case  of  non-compliance 
with information duties. Such sanctions take the form of fines or other administrative law 
sanctions, which can be found in CYPRUS, or an operator's licence to run a travel agency 
can  be  revoked,  as  introduced  in  HUNGARY  and  MALTA.  In  CZECH  REPUBLIC,  on  the  other 
hand,  there  are  no  special  sanctions,  though  the  general  system  governing  improper 
p

erformance and damages applies. 

  Limitation of price revision 

Art. 4(4)(a) of the Directive restricts changes in the price. While half of the new Member 
States introduced national provisions restricting price increase as well as price decrease, 
the  other  half  of  the  new  Member  States  have  introduced  provisions  which  only  restrict 
price increases. 

The majority of the new Member States have transposed the conditions for price revision 
25 and SLOVAKIA are the only Member States 
as stipulated in the Directive. CZECH REPUBLIC
to have introduced variations as regards the conditions. In CZECH REPUBLIC,26 an increase 
in  the  package  price  is  possible  only  as  a  result  of  an  increase  in  “payments  connected 
with  transportation,  e.g.  airport  and  port  taxes,  included  in  the  price  of  the  package”. 
Furthermore,  an  increase  in  price  due  to  variations  in  the  exchange  rate  of  the  Czech 
crown  is  only  possible  where  the  exchange  rate  increases  by  more  than  10  %  on 
a
ly an  agreement  between  the  parties  may  state  that  the  travel 
agency  is  entitled  to  increase  the  package  price  unilaterally  if  the  revision  method  is 
precisely  set  out  in  the  contract.28  A  similar  provision  can  be  found  in  the  SLOVAKIAN 
transposition  law,  which  states  that  a  change  in  the  exchange  rate of  the  Slovak  crown 
can  only  be  taken  into  account  if  the  exchange  rate  increases  by  more  than  5  %  on 
average. 

verage.27  Additional

, 

CZECH  REPUBLIC  and  SLOVAKIA  also  deviated  from  the  Directive's  minimum  harmonisation 
requirement that 20 days prior to the departure the price stated in the contract shall not 
be  increased,  by  introducing  a  21-day-period.  Other  increases  in  the  level  of  consumer 
protection which is provided in the Directive have been made limiting the value of price 
29), 5% 
increases under the contract. The limit of price increase varies from 2% (CYPRUS
(BULGARIA

31 and SLOVENIA) of the original/ greed price. 

30) to 10% (ROMANIA

a

  Consumer rights 

Where  the  consumer  is  prevented  from  proceeding  with  the  package,  Art.  4(3)  of  the 
Package  Travel  Directive  stipulates  that  the  consumer  may  change  his  booking.  In  that 
case, according to the Directive, the consumer must notify the organiser or the retailer of 
32 law does not require notification to the organiser and/or 
his intention. While SLOVENIAN
retailer, in the majority of the new Member States, only the organiser has to be notified. 
Only BULGARIA, ESTONIA and MALTA have transposed this provision precisely as found in the 
Directive, requiring a notification either to the organiser or the retailer.  

25  CC § 852c. 
26  CC § 852c(2). 
27  CC § 852c(2)(c). 
28  CC § 852c(1). 
29  Article 11(3) of the Package Travel, Holidays and Tours Law. 
30  Article 35 of the Law on Tourism. 
31  Article 14(3) of the Government Ordinance 107/1999 on package travel as approved and am
631 ot 16 November 2001. 
32  Article 899 of the Code o

f Obligations. 

ended by Law  

PE 475.084 

12 

 
                                                
 
 
 
 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Most of the new Member States require the notice to be given within the period agreed in 
the package travel contract. No specific period is required in LITHUANIA. Under LITHUANIAN 
law,  the  tourist  is  entitled  to  have  the  trip  transferred  to  a  third person  who must  then 
agree  to  all  the  terms  of  the  contract.  33  Only  in  CZECH  REPUBLIC,  LITHUANIA
34  and 
35 must the notification be given in a specific form (written form). The majority 
SLOVAKIA
of the new Member States also transposed the rules concerning liability as stated in the 
Directive, by introducing joint and several liability on the transferor and transferee. 

  cases  of significant  alterations  to  essential  terms  of  the contract,  the  majority  of  the 
In
new Member States grant the consumer a right of cancellation and a power to accept the 
alteration, thereby transposing the provision of Art. 4(5) of the Package Travel Directive. 
LITHUANIA  is  the  only  member  state  not  to  have  explicitly  transposed  this  provision. 
LITHUANIAN  law  simply  grants  tour  organisers  the  right  to  waive  the  contract  for 
compelling reasons, though they are still obliged to inform the tourist of this decision.36 

ll  remaining  new  Member  States  grant  a  right  of  cancellation.  In  case  of  cancellation, 
A
substitute package of equivalent or higher quality and 
the consumer is entitled to take a 
he is also entitled to reimbursement of all sums paid in the majority of the new Member 
States. Instead of transposing the Directive's requirement for the reimbursement to take 
place  'as  soon  as  possible',  BULGARIA,  CYPRUS,  HUNGARY  and  POLAND  have  introduced  a 
more  specific  timeframe  in  which  the  reimbursement  has  to  take  place.  However,  no 
een introduced in CZECH REPUBLIC. Furthermore, CZECH REPUBLIC, SLOVAKIA 
t
imeframe has b
and HUNGARY have also introduced cancellation penalties. 

Variations exist in regard to the right to accept the alteration. While in some new Member 
States  the  consumer  is  just  entitled  to  accept  the  alteration  (CZECH  REPUBLIC,  HUNGARY, 
37 and SLOVAKIA), in other new Member States, the consumer can accept 
POLAND, ROMANIA
a rider to the contract (BULGARIA, CYPRUS, LATVIA and MALTA), or has the right to accept a 
replacement of an equivalent or higher standard (ESTONIA

38, HUNGARY and LATVIA). 

The  majority  of  the  new  Member  States  have  adopted  the  Directive’s  requirement  of 
significant alterations to the essential terms. Variations of this requirement can be found 
in CZECH REPUBLIC, POLAND, ROMANIA and SLOVAKIA. 

otify the 

Except  for  SLOVENIA,  all  new  Member  States  have  adopted  the  organiser’s  obligation  to 
n
consumer about the alterations. The majority of the new Member States have 
imposed this obligation on the organiser, thereby following the Directive’s provision. 
While most of the new Member States require the notification to be given ‘as quickly as 
possible’ (CYPRUS, ESTONIA, MALTA and SLOVAKIA), ‘immediately’ (BULGARIA), ‘without delay’ 
(LATVIA and POLAND), ROMANIA has introduced a more specific timeframe of 15 days before 
departure. No time limit has been introduced in CZECH REPUBLIC and HUNGARY. 

e  of  the  new 
Besides  the  information  concerning  any  alteration  to  the  contract,  som
ire  the  notification  to  contain  information  on  a  right  to  choose 
Member  States  also  requ
(POLAND),  information  about  any  price  increase  or  information  on  how  to  cancel  the 
journey (ESTONIA). 
According to Art. 4(5) of the Package Travel Directive, the consumer is obliged to inform 
the  organiser  or  the  retailer  of  his  decision  regarding  cancellation  of  the  contract  or 
accepting  the  alteration,  as  soon  as  possible.  Most  of  the  new  Member  States  have 

3(1). 
2). 

33  CC Art. 6.75
34  CC, Art. 6.753(
35  CC, § 741f(1). 
36  CC Art. 6.751(1
37  Article 15 (b) of the Government Ordinance 107/1999 on pack
631 of 16 November 2000: acceptanc
38  According to § 872(2) of the Law of Obligations, the traveller may, instead of withdrawing, demand a 
substitute package of equiva
substitute package of lower cost and a refu

lent or higher cost (if the tour operator is able to offer such a substitute), or a 
nd of the difference in price between the packages. 

e of the new conditions of the contract. 

). 

age travel as approved and amended by Law 

13 

PE 475.084 

                                                
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

deviated  from  the  Directive's  timeframe  ('as  soon  as  possible')  by  either  introducing  a 
specific timeline calculated in calendar days or by referring to the timeframe established 
by the travel bureau (SLOVAKIA). 

Except  for  ESTONIA,  all  the  other  new  Member  States  have  transposed  the  provisions  of 
Art.  4(6)  of  the  Package  Travel  Directive  regarding  the  consumer's  right  to  be 
compensated  for  non-performance  of  the  contract,  with  all  the  exemptions  contained  in 
Art. 4(6) i) and ii).  

  Additional duties of the organiser 

Art. 4(7) and Art. 6 of the Package Travel Directive also impose additional duties on the 
organiser.  These  additional  duties  are  the  obligation  to  make  alternative  arrangements 
(Art. 4(7)), the duty to provide equivalent return transportation and compensation (Art. 
4(7)(2)) and the duty to make prompt efforts in case of complaints (Art. 6). 

xcept for SLOVENIA, all the other new Member States have transposed the obligation to
E
make  alternative  arrangements,  though  with  variations  as  CZECH  REPUBLIC  and  ESTONIA. 
HUNGARY and POLAND have also introduced additional requirements. 

39  has  transposed  the  duty  to  provide  equivalent  transport  for  the  return 
While  SLOVENIA
journey  and  compensation  (indirectly),  the  other  new  Member  States  have  transposed 
this  provision  directly,  with  some  variations  in  CZECH  REPUBLIC,  ESTONIA,  POLAND  and 
SLOVAKIA.  SLOVENIAN  law  does  not  contain  any  specific  provision.  The  substance  of  Art. 
4(7)  of  the  Directive  can  rather  be  found  in  several  different  articles  of  the  Code  of 
n  may  only  be  replaced  with 
O
accommodation  facilities  of  the  same  category  or  of  a  higher  category  at  the  travel 
organiser’s  expense,  and  only  in  the  agreed  location.  This  seems  stricter  than  the 
Directive’s  'suitable  alternative  arrangements'.  In  the  event  of  substantial  alterations 
without  justified  reasons,  the  organiser  must  return  everything  obtained  from  the 
traveller, who is allowed to cancel the contract.40 

bligations.  It  is  stated  that  the  agreed  accommodatio

ost  new  Member  States  also  impose  the  duty

Most  of  the  new  Member  States  have  transposed  the  organiser's  duty  to  make  prompt 
efforts  in  case  of  complaints  as  provided  by  Directive.  However,  no  specific  legislative 
transposition  of  this  provision  can  be  found  in  LITHUANIA,  LATVIA,  POLAND  and  SLOVENIA. 
M
  on  the  consumer's  counterparty,  the 
organiser  or  retailer.  The  local  representative,  as  mentioned  in  the  Directive,  is  only 
mentioned in the national laws of BULGARIA, CYPRUS and MALTA. In HUNGARY, the traveller 
must inform the representative of a problem without delay, who, in turn, is obliged to act 
and  inform  the  travel  company  without  delay.  If  there  is  no  representative,  a  travel 
agency must be informed. 

  Liability 

rt.  5  of  the  Package  Travel  Directive  sets  the  liability  of  the  organiser  and

/or  retailer. 
A
The majority of the new Member States have transposed the Directive's provision of Art. 
5(2)  concerning  the  liability  for  damages  and  exemptions  of  liability  as  under  the 
Directive.  Deviations  have  been  introduced  in  POLAND,  ROMANIA  and  SLOVENIA.  HUNGARY 
and  ESTONIA  are  the  only  new  Member  States  not  to  have  explicitly  transposed  the 
Directive's provision

. 

Art.  5(2)(4)  and(4)  grant  the  possibility  to  introduce  a  limitation  on  the  amount  of 
damages to be pa
id. The majority of the new Member States have introduced provisions 
allowing the comp
ensation to be limited in accordance with international conventions and 
for non-material
 damage suffered by the consumer. However, no transposition has been 
made  in  LATVIA, 
ROMANIA  and  SLOVENIA,  regarding  the  limitation  in  accordance  to 

39  Article 903 of the Code of Obligations only regulates when changes in the travel programme are permit
40  Consumer Law Compendium, p. 313 available on 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_int/safe/acquis/index_en.htm. 

ted. 

PE 475.084 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

international  conventions,  and  in  HUNGARY  and  LATVIA,  regarding  limitation  in  matters  of 
damages other than personal injury. 

ESTONIA  explicitly  provides  for  compensation  for  loss  of  enjoyment.41  In  HUNGARY,  the 
organiser may need to compensate for non-material damages as well.42 ROMANIA does not 
expressly stipulate the compensation for non-material damage. However, such damages 
m

ight be obtained in accordance with the general rules.43 

Except  for  ROMANIA,  the  majority  of  the  new  Member  States  have  transposed  the 
organiser's  duty  for  assistance  to  the  consumer  in  difficulty,  by  mostly  deviating  from 
Art. 5(2)(2) of the D

irective. 

e  is  one  of  the  few  exceptional  cases  in  which 
Art.  5(4)  of  the  Package  Travel  Directiv
where  the  Directive  imposes  a  duty  on  the  consumer.  According  to  this  provision,  the 
consumer has the duty to communicate any shortcomings in performance. The majority 
of  the  new  Member  States  have  transposed  this  provision  with  deviations.  No  explicit 
transposition of the provision can be found in LITHUANIA and SLOVENIA. 

2.2.3.  Conclusion 

the implementation of 
In terms of scope and particular measures of consumer protection, 
e  Directive  in  the  new  Member  States  can  thus  be  described  as  typical.  The  scope  of 
th
terms used in the Directive is adjusted to the particular Member State, in several cases 
resulting  in  an  increased  level  of  protection  for  the  consumer.  A  very  similar  picture 
arises  from  an  analysis  of  the  implementation  of  particular  measures  of  consumer 
protection,  such  as  information  duties  and  the  rights  of,  as  well  liability  to,  consumers. 
Perhaps one distinctive characteristic which can be taken from the implementation in the 
new  Member  States  is  the  use  of  specific,  calculated  time  periods.  Thus,  instead  of 
employing  a  term  such  as  ‘within  a  reasonable  delay’,  many  of  the new  Member  States 
provide for ‘x number of days’.   

2.3.  The Implementation of Article 7 

rt.  7  of  the  Package  Travel  Directive  provides  a  provision  concerning  security  in  case  of 
A
insolvency.  According  to  Art.  7,  “the  organiser  and/or  retailer  party  to  the  contract  shall 
provide  sufficient  evidence  of  security  for  the  refund  of  money  paid  over  and  for  the 
reparation of the consumer in the event of insolvency”. Because the text of Art. 7 leaves 
great liberty to the Member States in the choice of the appropriate measures, the ECJ has 
clarified in several cases how the provision has to be interpreted regarding certain aspects. 

In the Dillenkofer Case (C-178/94)44, the Court stated that national provisions transposing 
Art.  7  must  not  allow  consumers  to  suffer  the  loss  of  any  portion  of  the  package  price, 
therefore, consumers were to receive the full cost of their reparation and the full amount of 
for  POLAND,  in  all  other  new  Member  States,  any  payments 
monies  paid  over.  Except 
(including partia
l payments) made and reparation costs must be refunded. Under some of 
the  new  Member  States’  laws,  accommodation  (ESTONIA)  or  other  needs  resulting  from 
45) must be refunded. In SLOVAKIA, the difference 
non-performance (HUNGARY and SLOVENIA
between  the  package  prices  in  the  case  of  a  substitute  package  or  the  difference  in  the 
case of a package only partially provided must be refunded.46 

41  Ibid., p. 327. 
42  Ibid. 
43  Ibid., p. 328. 
44   C-178/94 - Dillenkofer. 
45   Damage caused to consumers as a result of a brea
46   Consumer Law Compendium (Fn. 39), p. 335. 

ch of contract. 

15 

PE 475.084 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Because there is no indication in the Directive’s text that the security mentioned in Art. 7 
might be limited, the ECJ ruled in the Rechberger Case (C-140/97)47 that 5% of a quarter’s 
turnover  would  provide  no  sufficient  security.  However,  some  of  the  new  Member  States 
have introduced a minimum insurance sum. 

ew  Member  States,  having  introduce

d  a  minimum  insurance  sum  are  CYPRUS  (minimum 
N
sum  is  equivalent  to  20%  or  more  of  the  payments  received  by  the  other  party  to  the 
contract during the 12-month period preceding the start date of the bond or equivalent to 
the  maximum  amount  of  all  payments  “which  the  other  party  to  the  contract  expects  at 
any moment to be in his possession, pursuant to contracts which have not yet been fully 
p
R   (at  least  12  %  of  the  travel 
company’s  net  revenue ),  LITHUANIA   (distinguishes  between  cases  where  the  tour 
organiser’s annual revenue is over/under 4 million LTL) and LATVIA (security must cover the 
money the customer has paid over a period of not less than one year and a sum of 50 % of 
t
he forecast turnover for the fo

erformed,  or  whichever  amount  is  greater”48),  HUNGA Y

llowing year, but not less than 20 000 lats).51 

49

50

In  SLOVAKIA,  a  guarantee  certificate  has  to  be  provided  before  the  payment,  whereas  in 
MALTA  and  POLAND  information  on  insurance  is  required  to  be  provided  in  the  travel 
brochure  (MALTA)  or  in  a  written  confirmation  (POLAND).52  In  some  of  the  new  Member 
States,  the  security  is  also  a  condition  for  the  tour  organiser’s  licence  (Bulgaria53,  CZECH 
REPUBLIC, HUNGARY, POLAND, SLOVAKIA and SLOVENIA). 

2.4.  Intermed

iaries 

2.4.1. 

Initial Position and Demand for steps taken in favour of the consumer 

The  role  and  the  responsibilities  of 
intermediaries  as  they  appear  after  the 
implementation  of  the  Directive  are  difficult  to  determine.  When  analysing  the  various 
approaches  towards  transposing  the  Directive’s  provisions,  one  must  bear  in  mind  the 
different  preconditions  set  by  the  characteristics  of  the  market  in  each  Member  State. 
While in several Member States it was, and still is, common practice for an organiser as 
well  as  a  retailer  to  be  involved  in  the  conclusion  and/or  execution  of  package  travel 
mpetences and responsibilities is not typically found in 
contracts, such a separation of co
ther  Member  States.  Therefore,  both  at  the  time  of  drafting  and  following  the  coming 
o
ions  proved  difficult  to  adapt  to  the 
into  force  of  the  Directive,  the  harmonised  provis
  the  different  national  markets.  The 
s
pecific  parameters  and  stages  of  development  of
state of affairs in this respect has not changed in the past 20 years.  

As  a  result,  the  national  legislation  which  transposes  the  Package  Travel  Directive  has 
been unsuccessful in properly clarifying the role and responsibilities of intermediaries in a 
consumer-friendly way. 

Due  to  the  fact  that  the  Directive  essentially  leaves  it  to  the  discretion  of  the  Member 
States  upon  whom  certain  legal  duties  are  placed,54  the  Member  States  have  adopted 
several  different  terms  in  characterising  “intermediaries”,  such  as  “travel  agency”  or 
“travel  agent”.  However,  the  national  definitions  do  not  clarify  whether  travel  agents 
organising the package or its retailers are meant. In fact, the plethora of different terms 
referring  to  “intermediaries”  may  actually  have  resulted  in  even  less  of  a  distinction 

47   C-140/97 - Rechberger. 
48   Article 18(4) of the Package Travel, Holidays and Tours Law of 1998. 
49   Article 8(2) of Government Decree 213/1996. 
50   Article 7(3) of the Law on Tourism. The calculation must take the previous year into account and cover all 
contracts conclude
mer Law Compendium, p. 336 – 337. 
51   Consu
 Compen um, p. 337. 
52   Consumer Law
di
 Law on Tourism. 
53   Articles 41 and 43 of the
54 Consumer Law Compendium, p. 224. 

d for the supply of tourist services abroad. 

PE 475.084 

16 

                                                
 
 
 
 
 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

between retailers and organisers than that contained in the Directive. In some laws, the 
“organiser” and “retailer” even seem combined. 

It  can  thus  be  concluded  that  necessary  increases  in  the  level  of  consumer  protection 
could  be  brought  about  by  clarifying  the  distribution  of  competences  between  those 
whom  the  consumer  deals  with  in  relation  to  package  travel  and,  most  importantly, 
which remedies the consumer has against whom.  

One  possible  approach  might  be  to  introduce  a  visible  label  which  indicates  to  the 
consumer that he is now involving in a contract on a package travel under European Law. 
This would, on the one hand, warn the consumer that he is entering a contract on package 
travel and, on the other hand, make clear to the consumer, when opting in, against whom 
he can make an eventual claim should anything go wrong. However, this presupposes that 
the  Directive  first  specifies  who  is  liable  and  on  which  grounds  under  European  Contract 
Law. 

2.4.2.  The situation today55  
This section is intended to give an overview of the situation as it is found t
oday. It does 
not claim to be conclusive as this would go beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless, 
it should give an impression of the most obvious difficulties involved in the transposition 
of the Directive.  

There  is  often  a  lack  of  precision  as  to  whether  certain  obligations  concern  ei her  the 
e  Directive  itself  mostly  employs  the 
organising  party  or  an  intermediate  person.  As  th
xpression “organiser and/or retailer”, many national laws have adopted similarly vague 
e
terms in determining who is r

esponsible for what.  

t

tive has 
Already the transposition of the definition of a “package travel” given by the Direc
onsibility 
been  adopted  differently  by  the  Member  States.  (2),  stating  the  general  resp
nder  this  Directive  of  either  the  organizer  or  the  retailer,  has  not  been  transposed 
u
constantly  by  adopting  the  term  “organizer  or  retailer”.  See  for  illustration  the  following 
examples concerning, one the one hand, the conclusion of the contract, on the other, the 
responsibilities as well as the liability. 

  Conclusion and content of the contract 

Intermediaries  sometimes  play  a  decisive  role  in  the  conclusion  of  the  contract.  For  a 
valid package travel contract, Romanian law, for example, calls for the written receipt of 
reservation from either the organiser or the retailer. 

When  it  comes  to  pre-contractual  information  duties,  the  terms  used  for  implementing 
gency  to  provider, 
the  Directive  vary  from  only  organizer/only  retailer  or  travel  a
ontractor and “the other party”. Most Member States, however, have adopted the terms 
c
of the Directive.  

s  concerning  the  content  of  the  contract,  in  numerous  Member 
tates, the contract has to include the contact information of the intermediary in addition 

In  terms  of  requirement
S
to that of the organiser.56   

In  many  national  laws,  intermediaries,  as  well  as  the  organiser  himself,  must  be 
contactable during the time in which the consumer is away. This is part of intermediaries’ 
contractual information duties which mus

t be performed prior to departure.  

Other  national  provisions  do  not  clarify  whether  the  pers
contact is the organiser or the retailer. 

on  who  must  be  available  for 

55 With regard to the fact that this study is based on the Consumer Law Compendium which has been published 
in 2008, it needs to be considered that sm
aller changes in national law might not have been taken into account 
yet.   
56 See above on the implementation of co

nsumer rights. 

17 

PE 475.084 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

  Responsibilities 

In part, the responsibilities of intermediaries depend on general provisions in national law 
which  determine  the  person  with  whom  the  consumer  has  concluded  the  contract,  i.e. 
the organiser or the retailer. This is owing to the fact that the Directive does not refer to 
the parties in terms of the contract, but rather in terms of their respective responsibilities 
i.e.  retailer  or  organiser).  This  can  be  illustrat
ed  through  Art.  6  of  the  Directive, 
(
according  to  which,  in  cases  of  complaint,  the  organizer  and/or  retailer  or  his  local 
representative, if there is one, must make prompt efforts to find appropriate solutions’ . 
In  GERMANY,  for  instance,  there  are  no  rules  explicitly  regulating  the  legal  relationship 
between  intermediaries  and  the  consumer.  According  to  general  provisions,  the 
in

termediary will only be liable in exceptional cases

, such as miscounselling.   

Although  Art.  4  (7)  of  the  Directive  allows  for  the  organiser  of  the  package  travel  to 
provide  suitable  alternative  arrangements  as  well  as  to  compensate  the  consumer  for 
significant parts of the service that have not been supplied, some national laws hold the 
intermediary to this obligation too (“travel agent” etc.).57     

Concerning  the  implementation  of  Art.  7  of  the  Directive,  which  imposes  a  legal 
tion of the organiser and/or retailer to provide sufficient evidence of security in the 
obliga
event  of  insolvency  so  that  the  consumer  can  be  repatriated  and  refunded  any  money 
paid  over,  no  national  transpo
sition  expressly  limits  that  obligation  to  the  retailer  only. 
Most  commonly,  the  exact  expression  of  the  Directive  (organiser  and/or  retailer)  has 
been adopted. 

  Liability 

(2) of the Directive, some Member States have not adopted fully the 
As opposed to Art. 5 
limitation  on  unreasonable  contractual  limitations  of  liability  under  this  article. 
Consequently,  intermediaries  may  also  be  strictly  liable  in  certain  cases.  Otherwise, 
several  Member  States  in  which  Art.  5  of  the  Directive  was  adopted  in  full,  make  the 
organiser and retailer either jointly liable or individu

ally liable. 

In  terms  of  the  extent  to  which  intermediaries  may  be  liable,  national  law  provides  a 
variety  of  different  rules,  making  it  difficult  to  determine  the  exact  extent  of  liability  in 
cross-border  cases.  As  a  result,  the  safest  compliance  practice  in  cross-border  cases  is 
simply not to limit liability at all.   

intermediary  (or  the  organiser  as  well)  there  are 
In  the  case  of  infringements  by  the 
 States. This might have the effect that 
many different sanctions applied by the Member
inute detail to information duties resulting 
intermediaries feel pressured to conform in m
from transnational cases in order to avoid liability in other Member States whose financial 
consequences  are  hardly  possible  to  estimate.  However,  in  reality  it  most  likely  hinders 
rences  between  the  obligations  of 
cross-border  transactions.  So  too  do  the  great  diffe
termediaries  in  the  Member  States.  Due  to  those  differences,  intermediaries  who  sell 
in
package  travel  deals  organised  abroad  are  susceptible  to  the  imposition  of  all  the 
obligations  which  would  otherwise  be  owed  solely  by  the  organiser.  As  a  result,  this 
might be hindering cross-border transactions. 

owever, these cases each provide valid variations of transposition which fully comply 

H
with the Directive. This is due to the fact that the Directive only makes use of the 
expression “organizer and/or retailer”. 

57 See above on the implementation of consumer rights; where the consumer is prevented from proceeding with 
the  package,  the  consumer  may  change  his  booking.  In  that  case,  according  to  the  Directive,  the  consumer 
must 
notify  the  organiser  or  the  retailer  of  his  intention.  In  the  majority  of  the  member  states,  only  the 
organiser has to be notified.  

PE 475.084 

18 

                                                
 
 
 
 
 
 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

intermediaries  are  generally-speaking  subject  to  the  same 

2.4.3.  Conclusion: Proposal: A EU label indicating consumer protection 
In  conclusion, 
legal 
requirements  as  organisers.  Firstly,  it  is  usually  either  the  organiser  or  the  intermediate 
person who must be contactable where complications arise during the travel. It is likewise 
for  either  the  organiser  or  intermediary  to 
satisfy  the  pre-contractual  duty  to  provide 
contact details to the “consumer”. Fi
nally, damages are to be claimed against either one of 
these  persons.  Neverthe
less,  many  Member  States  do  not  impose  legal  obligations  upon 
intermediaries  as  a  distinct  group,  since  the  respective  national  laws  do  not  specify 
expressly  upon  whom  which  certain  obligations  fall  and  differences  in  terminology  hinder 
the drawing of clear lines.  

2.5.  Travel falling outside the scope of the Directive 

2.5.1.  Small package travel 
Certain  package  travel  deals  do  not  fall  under  the  Package  Travel  Directive.  This  is  the 
case,  for  example,  when  the  service  only  covers  a  period  of  up  to twenty-four hours  or 
d

oes not include overnight accommodation.58  

 the Directive. Combinations of travel services, such as a co

The Member States do not usually enact specific legislation protecting the consumers of 
such  types  of  ‘small  package  travel’.  One  exception  is  GERMANY,  where  the  scope  of  the 
specific regulation of package travel in the German Civil Code59  is slightly broader than 
in
ach trip and a football ticket 
for  less  than  24  hours  and  without  an  overnight  stay  therefore  generally  fall  within  the 
scope of the German transposition law of the Directive. Where this is the case, the level 
of  protection  is  therefore  the  same  as  under  the  Directive.  The  only  exception  is  the 
German transposition of Article 7 of the Directive (§ 651 k BGB) in which such short term 
packages  are  exempted.  To  that  extent,  German  consumers  are  not  protected  against 
the insolvency of the tour organiser.  

vast majority of the other Member States have not extended the scope of 
In contrast, the 
their  specific  travel  legislation  to  such  ‘small  package  tours’.  Therefore,  such  trips  do  not 
fall under the specific protective instruments of the Directive. Consumer protection is left to 
more general rules of the national laws on the relevant type of service contract. However, 
it has to be noted that the general protection against unfair terms based on national laws, 
as well as the transposition laws of the Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts,60 
s
hould  exclude  the  most  harmful  contract  clauses,  such  as  e
xclusions  of  liability.  With 
regard to the individual elements of the package (e.g. the bus trip or the ticket to a sports 
event)  consumers  should  be  relatively  well  protected.  The  problematic  cases  are  those 
where non-performance or defective performance of one element of the package spoils the 
purpose  of  the  trip  (e.g.  the  bus  fails  and  the  consumer  does  not  reach  the  sport  venue 
cket, since it was his/her risk not to arrive in time). It is 
a
highly  probable  that  national  laws  contain  regulatory  gaps  with  regard  to  such  package-
specific risks. Without any specific regulation on such small packages, the consumer may 
only have individual rights against the providers of the individual elements of the package, 
but no general claim against the tour organiser. This regulatory gap could easily be filled 
by  slightly  extending  the  scope  of  the  Directive  to  certain  small  packages.  So  as  not  to 
overburden tour organisers with information duties and measures of insolvency protection, 
one  could,  however,  consider  exempting  packages  sold  for  a  very  low  price.  The  model 
would  be  article  2(4)  of  the  Consumer  Rights  Directive  (exemption  for  packages  with  a 
price lower than 50 EUR).61 

nd has no right of refund for the ti

58 Art. 2 (1) D. 90/314. 
59 § 651 et seq.. BGB. 
60 Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts. 
61 Art. 2(4), Consumer Rights 

Directive, 2011/83 EU. 

19 

PE 475.084 

                                                
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

2.5.2. 

Individual travel services 

Firstly,  it  has  to  be  noted  that  there  is  still  some  protection  in  some  areas  (flights,  bus 
trips,  trains,  ferries)  under  EU  Law  in  particular  typical  cases.  Moreover,  international 
t (but also limit) 
flights and train trips fall under conventions which, in certain cases, gran
travellers’ rights (not only consumers). 

Consumer rights in cases of individual travel services, such as flights, train journeys, the 
renting of holiday homes, hotel accommodation (not forming a package), depend on the 
national legislation for the relevant type of service contract. In those legal systems where 
civil codifications have sections on specific contracts, individual travel services will usually 
fall under the section for contracts of work or rental contracts. Where this is the case, the 
specific  remedies  available  for  this  type  of  contract  apply  (as  a  rule,  e.g.:  right  to 
terminate;  the  right  to  reduce  price;  claim  for  damages,  often  with  specific  duties  of 
t cut-off or limitation periods). In those systems where there 
notification and rather shor
  no  civil  codification  or  just  a  general  law  of  contract,  the  situation  is  rather  similar. 
is
t  law.  Since  the 
Consumers  will  then  have  rather  similar  rights  under  general  contrac
Unfair  Terms  Directive  applies,  many  types  of  unfair  clauses  in  this  area  should  be 
prohibited.  

Consequentially, a general European law on individual travel services might be not very 
bvious  practices  which  are  not  consumer 
urgent.  This  is  particularly  true  since  some  o
iendly  such  as  overbooking,  denied  boarding  without  reason  or  the  sale  of  additional 
fr
services with pre-ticked boxes already have been tackled by European legislation.  

If  one  were  to  look  for  possible  prospective  fields  of  EU  activity,  one  could  perhaps 
inquire into the extent to which consumer rights are endangered in cases of insolvency. 
Other than for package travel, there is no insolvency protection of consumers, especially 
with  regard  to  advance  payments.  One  could  also  enquire  into  the  extent  to  which  –  in 
general  –  the  different  level  of  pre-contractual  information  duties  in  the  European  legal 
systems  leads  to  consumer  protection  gaps  in  some  systems  where  there  are  few  or 
hardly any pre-contractual information duties.  

PE 475.084 

20 

 
 
 
 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

3. REFORM 

First of all,  it needs to  be noted t
hat the analysis of the way in which the Directive has 
b
een  transposed  in  Member  States  did  not  reveal  substantial  gaps.  Although  some 
Member  States  broadened  the  scope  of  their  travel  laws  in  different  respects,  these 
findings do not lead to the conclusion that there is an urgent need to extend the scope of 
the Directive.  

owever, it has been suggested that there be some extensions to the scope (e.g. one-

H
day trips, conferences, flights) or new protection instruments (e.g. the insertion of 
general rules on cancellation fees if the consumer cancels without a justified reason). 

3.1.  Weaknesses  of  the  Directive  as  seen  by  stakeholders  and 
possible remedies 

3.1.1.  The issues at stake 

Several  problems  have  been  encountered  by  the  stakeholders  with  regard  to  the 
following issues:  

  Dynam

ic packaging 

  Difficulties in interpreting the Directive 

 

 

"Organiser" and "Retailer";  

"Consumer";  

  Pre-contractual information requirements (Article 3);  

 

Information requirements and variation in price (Article 4.1-4.4);  

  Withdrawal from the contract by the consumer and right to compensation, notably 

in case of cancellation (Article 4.5-4.6);  

  Liability of organisers (Article 5);  

  Consumer complaints (Article 6);  

  Security for Insolvency (Article 7);  

 

Inconsistencies or ambiguities. 

a ) Dynamic packaging 
The Commission has been made aware of an increasing trend in some Member States of 
consumers putting together their own holiday components from different organisers (so-
called dynamic packaging), instead of opting for packages pre-arranged by an organiser 
or a retailer.62  

One  consequence  of  this,  in  some  parts  of  the  EU  at  least,  may  be  that  the  sale  of 
package  holidays  now  constitutes  a  smaller  proportion  of  the  sale  of  total  travel  sales 
than  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Directive.63  The  regulation  of  these  dynamic 

62 Study on Consumer Detriment in the area of Dynamic Packaging, London 2009, p. i.; Working Document on 
the  Council  Directive  90/314/EEC  of  13  June  1990  on  package  travel,  package  holidays  and  package  tours, 
Brussels 2007, p. 6.  
63 Working Document 2007 (Fn 61), p. 5. The number of consumers booking ‘dynamic packages’ is increasing 
dramatically. By 2009, 23% of EU citizens had used dynamic packages in the past 2 years, but the figure is 
over 40% in countries such as Ireland (46%) or Sweden (44%), and very high also in countries such as 
Slovenia (42%) and Italy (36%), see MEMO/09/523.  Dynamic packages already accounted for 33 % of the 
total travel market in 2009. 

21 

PE 475.084 

 
 
                                                
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

packages  seems  to  be  an  issue  in  a  number  of  Member  States.64  It  may  not  always  be 
clear which travel
 arrangements are covered by the Directive. For instance, after booking 
a  flight  on  the  we
bsite  of  a  low  cost  airline,  the  consumer  may  be  prompted  to  book  a 
hotel and/or car rental and is then directed to separate websites. If the bookings of the 
different  services  are  subject  to  separate  contracts  made  with  distinct  companies  and 
with separate payments, the package may not be covered by the Directive.  

ore  or  less  id

Often  it  is  not  made  clear  to  the  consumer  that  different  levels  of  protection  apply  for 
entical  travel  packages,  which  are  sold  differently.  This  uncertainty,  and 
m
ct 
possibly  divergent  interpretations  of  the  Directive  by  the  Member  States,  may  affe
competition and the level of consumer protection.65  

ese 
The  scope  of  the  Directive  could  be  clarified  in  order  to  determine  whether  th
products  are  covered  or  not.  Differences  between,  on  the  one  hand,  cases  where  the 
retailers/organisers  offer  different  travel  components  (hotel,  car  rental  etc.)  on  their 
er hand, cases where retailers/organisers  link their web site to 
websites and, on the oth
other businesses offering suc

h components should be considered. 

b) Difficulties in interpreting the Directive 
T
has been brought up by se
may  need  clarification,  such  as  “other  touri
accommodation and accounting for a significan

he  issue  of  what  should  be  considered  a  package  within  the  meaning  of  the  Directive 
veral stakeholders and Member States.66 Certain expressions 
st  services  not  ancillary  to  transport  or 
t proportion of the package”. 

  need  to  define  the  expression  “inclusive  price”  in  the  light  of  ECJ 
There  may  also  be  a
rulings.  67The  Court  r
uled  that  the  term  package  must  be  interpreted  so  as  to  include 
holidays  organised  by  retailers,  at  the  request  of,  and
  in  accordance  with,  the 
specifications  of  a  consumer.  Following  the  same  judgement,  the  term  "pre-arranged" 
en the contract 
includes combinations of tourist services put together at the moment wh
is concluded.  

Thereby,  travel  arrangements  are  considered
agencies  or  internet  platforms  which  pro
request of the consumer, tourist services 
different  service  providers.  Moreover,  accord
legislation, currently under  discussion68,  th
and would have to provide to the consu
ticket price. This will have to be considered within the review of the Directive.  

  as  packages  when  made  through  travel 
vide  the  option  of  combining,  on  the  specific 
like flights and hotel accommodation offered by 
ing  to  the  new  air  transport  market  access 
e  airlines  could  be  subject  to new  obligations 
mers the most comprehensive information on the 

The  Commission  has  also  re
ceived  requests  to  extend  the  protection  afforded  by  the 
Directive  to  consumers  in  relation  to  services  performed  over  a  period  of  less  than 
twenty-four  hours  or  which  do  not  include  overnight  accommodation,  e.g.  organised 
sightseeing excursions or organised tours to cultural or sporting events.69 

64 Ibid., p. 6. 
65 Ibid. 
66 Ibid.; see also: Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, What is a package? A guidance 
note for travel organisers, 2008, p. 3. 
67 C-400/00 – Club To
68  See  COM(2006)396  final,  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  o
common rules for the operator of air transport services in the Community. 
69 Summary of responses to the consultation launched to gather stakeholders' opinions on the existing pr
and preferred solutions in order to identify preferred policy options as part of the Commission’s review of the
Package Travel Directive, 201

0, p. 2; also, Working Document 2007, p. 8. 

oblems 

ur. 

n 

PE 475.084 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

c) "Organiser" and "Retailer"70 
Some  stakeholders  have  argued  that  only  organisers  should  comply  with  the  Package 
Travel  Directive,  irrespective  of  whether  they  sell  the  package  directly  or  through  a 
retailer.71  However,  when  considering  the  liability  of  the  retailer,  it  must  be  considered 
that he may act either as an intermediary selling packages put together by others, or as 
an  organiser  combining  independently  different  elements  of  a  trip.  It  may  not  be 
appropriate to make the organiser liable for the legal consequences resulting from oral or 
other information given by the retailer to the consumer at the time of the conclusion of a 
travel  package  or  promises  contained  in  the  retailers'  marketing  of  a  package.  The 
Commission  has  received  calls  to  extend  the  scope  of  the  Directive  to  all  package 
e er  a  package  “occasionally”,  e.g. 
organisers,  including  organisers  which  put  tog th
packages  organised  in  the  course  of  specific  activities  (sport,  school,  religious  activity, 
etc).72  

In some Member States, this type of extension in the Directive's scope of application has 
already  been  made.  Since  the  Directive  often  makes  use  of  the  term  "retailer"  in  an 
expression  such  as "the  organiser  and/or  retailer",  this  leaves  dis
cretion  to  the  Member 
tates  as  to  which  one  of  them  should  be  obliged  to  fulfil  the  duties  imposed  by  the 
S
Directive.73 Clarification may be needed. 

ise  package  trips  as  well  as  retailers 
It  is  suggested  here,  that  businesses  who  organ
should  be  under  a  specific  double  information duty, namely  (1)  to  inform  the  consumer 
that the service falls under EU Legislation and (2) to indicate the identity and address of 
the tour organiser as being the person responsible and liable for all consumer rights and 
claims under the EU Package Travel Legislation. 

d) "Consumer" 
The notion of "consumer" in the Directive is not limited to natural persons travelling for 
leisure  purposes,  but  includes  every  person,  natural  or  legal,  taking  a  package.  Many 
Member States have, when transposing the Directive, avoided the term "consumer" so as 
not to make an exception to contradict the general notion of "consumer".74 

The  difference  between  the  Package  Travel  Directive  and  the  seven  other  consumer 
protection  directives  under  review  is  that  the  Package  Travel  Directive's  notion  of 
consumer also covers B2B (Business to Business) relationships. 

On  the  one  hand,  the  use  of  one  of  the  definitions  proposed  in  the  Green  Paper  on  the 
Review of the acquis would exclude packages bought by professionals for predominantly 
professional reasons. This would diminish the rights of business passengers. It would also 
t extent a 
be necessary to consider how to frame a test for assessing whether and to wha
package  bought  both  for  business  and  leisure  purposes  falls  within  the  scope  of  the 
Directive  (i.e.:  mixed  usage  transactions).  75  Moreover,  the  Directive  defines  the 
consumer as being the one who concludes the contract and not necessarily the one who 
travels. A basic decision has to be made about whether just consumers (i.e. persons who 
be  protected. 
are  acting  for  a  non-commercial  purpose)  or  every  traveller  shou d 
oreover, for cases where the party to a travel contract and the person who travels are 
M
different  persons,  it  has  to  be  clarified  whether  the  one,  the  other  or  both  shall  have 
rights  under  the  Directive.  With  a  view  to  an  overarching  EU  Travel  Law,  it  might  be 
advisable to protect at least the person who travels irrespectively of whether this person 
is a consum

er or not. 

l

70 See generally, Working Document of the European Commission, Summary of Responses to the consultation 
on  package  travel,  package  holiday
s  and  package  tours,  2010,  section  3,  Liabilities,  Obligations  and 
Responsibilities, p. 4-5.  
71 Summary of responses (Fn 68), p. 4. 
72 Ibid., p. 2; Working Document 2007, p.8; Consumer Law Compendium, p
73 Consumer Law Compendium, p. 224.  
74 Working Document 2007, p. 8. 
75 Ibid. 

. 213. 

23 

PE 475.084 

                             
 
 
 
  
        
           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 On the other hand, it could be argued that consumers and businesses do not require the 
same  level  of  protection,  and  that  by  excluding  B2B  transactions  from  the  field  of 
application,  the  price  of  consumers'  packages  would  decrease  since  organisers  and 
retailers would not be obliged to insure themselves against passenger claims to the same 
extent as before.76 

e) Pre-contractual information requirements (Article 3) 
Consumer  stakeholders  believe  that  the  Directive  could  specify  that  pre-contractual 
information forms a part of the contract.77 The Directive expressly states that information 
given  in  the  brochure  is  binding  for  the  organiser/retailer;  however,  as  the 
organiser/retailer is exempted from this obligation if he informs the consumer of changes 
before the conclusion of the contract, the binding nature of the brochure can be relatively 
ercome. It has been put forward that the Directive should stipulate clearly that 
easily ov
y descriptive material, whether on websites or in hard copy form, should be subject to 
an
the provisions of the Directive.78 Furthermore, pre-contractual information should, to be 
in line with recent legislation, include the name of the operating air carrier as well as the 
"black list" of the air companies.79 

 the increasingly common practice of providing 
The extensive use of web information and
ly  limited  information  in  the  brochure,  making  reference  to  more  details  on  the 
on
internet, need to be considered in this context. Business stakeholders have claimed that, 
with  brochures  printed  well  in  advance  and  with  price  fluctuations,  due  for  instance  to 
exchange  rates  and  petrol  prices,  it  should  be  sufficient  to  indicate  reference  prices  in 
print  and  refer  consumers  to  the  internet  for  actual  prices.80  Otherwise,  the  costs  of 
reprinting  brochures  would  ultimately  increase  the  price
s  of  the  travel  arrangements. 
This  argument  needs  to  be  considered  since  consumers  may  find  it  more  difficult  to 
compare different a
lternatives when reading the brochures if the prices are not indicated, 
and that they may, if in dispute with the organiser after the journey, have difficulties in 
proving what was promised before departure, since the information on the web may have 
changed  in  the  meantime.  In  addition,  some  consumers  do  not  have  access  to  the 
internet81  and  to  keep  costs  down,  organisers  could,  instead  of  printing  prices  in  the 
brochures, provide separate price lists together with the brochure. 

There are a variety of national deviations when implementing the articles on information 
requirements. Almost all Member States have added some obligations for the organisers 
constitute  cross  border 
which  exceed  those  contained  in  the  Directive.  These  may 
barriers since it may be difficult for an organiser to produce brochures that can be used 
in several Member States. 

Finally, some stakeholders have argued that this provision of the Directive is redundant 
in  the  light  of  Directive  2005/29  concerning  unfair  business  to  consumer  commercial 
practices (UCP)82 which have applied since the end of 2007 and which sets standards for 

76 Ibid., p 9. 
77 Ibid.; Summary of responses, p. 4. 
78 Working Document 2007, p 9. 
79 Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2005 on the 
establishment of a Community list of air carriers subject to an operating ban within the Community and on 
informing air transport passengers of the identity of the operating air carrier, and repealing Article 9 of 
Directive 2004/36/EC (Text with EEA relevance). 
80 Summary of responses, p. 3. 
81 According to a special Eurobarometer survey on e-communications conducted between 7 December 2005 and 
11 January 2006, 40% of EU25 (not including Bulgaria and Romania) households have access to internet, 
ranging from 80% in the NL to 14 % in Slovakia. See 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/doc/info_centre/studies_ext_consult/ecomm_household
_study/eb_jul06_main_re
82 Directive 2005/29/EC of the European 
business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending C
Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65
(EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Par
L 149, 1

/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation 
liament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), OJ 

Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair 

ouncil Directive 84/450/EEC, 

port_en.pdf. 

1.6.2005. 

PE 475.084 

24 

 
 
 
                                                 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

information  not  to  be  misleading.  It  should,  however,  be  noted  that  the  UCP  will  not 
introduce information requirements that are specific to package travel such as the need 
to  indicate  tourist  classifications  of  the  hotel,  passport  or  visa  requirements,  the 
minimum number of persons required for the package to take place, or other information 
that  traditionally  has  been  identified  as  important  for  consumers  to  be  aware  of  before 
booking their journey. In addition, the UCP will not necessarily result in direct remedies 
ntract.  Remedies  for  UCP  infringements  will  depend  on  the  type  of 
arising  from  the  co
enforcement adopted in each MS. In some cases, consumers will be able to use civil law 
remedies  whereas,  in  other  cases,  only  administrative  law  sanc
tions  will  be  available 
(injunctions, fines). Moreover, the Services Directive introduces information requirements 
which are complementary to those laid down in other Community instruments. 

f) Information requirements and variation in price (Article 4.1-4.4) 
It has been suggested83 that the requirement that pre-contractual information should be 
provided  "in  writing  or  any  other  appropriate  form"  should  be  clarified.  This  could 
possibly  be  done  in  connection  with  similar  discussions  on  the  content  of  the  notion 
"durable  medium",  used  in  the  Distance  Selling  Directive84  and  the  E-commerce 
directive85 e.g. regarding confirmation of a distance purchase. 

ome  Member  States  have  made  use  of  the  possibility  to  make  exceptions  from 
S
information requirements when last minute contracts are concluded. Further specification 
in  the  Directive  as  to  which  information  needs  to  be  given  when  concluding  such 
contracts could be.  

The Directive sets out provisions concerning additional charges which can be imposed on 
the  consumer  in  precise  circumstances.  The  Directive  does  not  spell  out  whether  the 
contract  may  provide  for  the  organiser's  administrative  costs,  connected  to  e.g.  price 
increases due to fluctuating fuel prices, to be passed on to consumers.  

g)  Withdrawal  from  the  contract  by  the  consumer  and  right  to 
compensation, notably in case of cancellation (Article 4.5-4.6) 
According  to  Article  4.5,  the  consumer  can  withdraw  from  the  contract  only  if  the 
organiser  significantly  alters  any  of  the  essential  terms,  such  as  the  price.  Consumer 
ntly alter the contract 
stakeholders note that there are many changes which can significa
such  as  the  accommodation  offered,  the  travel  time  or  duration,  or  the  tourist  services 
which are available at the destination.86  

For instance, with regard to cruise tours, when the organiser fails to cover one of the legs 
of a scheduled route and does not stop at one or several of the scheduled ports of call, 
at,  since  the  accommodation  and  the  related  services  (e.g. 
industry  tends  to  claim  th
meals,  leisure  time)  have  been  provided,  passengers  do  not  have  a  right  to 
compensation  for  that  missed  leg  of  their  journey.  From  a  consumer's  point  of  view,  a 
cruise package includes all scheduled ports of call with the opportunity to experience the 
destinations  to  the  fullest,  the  dissatisfaction  of  which  should  result  in  a  refund  or 
compensation. 

However,  it  may  not  always  b
without resorting to litigati
consumers,  depending  on  the  purpose  of  the  journey,  and  that  may  also  affect  th
assessment  as  to  whether  an  appropriate  substitute  journey  has  been  offered  to 
consumer as different individuals may evaluate the same travel arrangement differe

e  clear  to  the  parties  what  amounts  to  an  essential  term 
t is essential may be perceived differently by different 
e 
the 

on. Wha

ntly. 

83 Consumer Law Compendium, p. 212. 
84 Directive 1997/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the Protection of 
Consumers in respect of Distance Contracts, OJ L 144, 4.
85 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects 
of information society services, in partic
ular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market, OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, 
p. 1. 
86 Working Document 2007, p 11. 

6.1997, p. 19.  

25 

PE 475.084 

 
 
 
 
    
                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

The  provisions  for  compensation  in  cases  of  cancellation  and  withdrawal  from  the 
contract  as  set  out  in  Article  4.6  may  need  to  be  reconsidered.87  For  instance,  the 
Directive  does  not  specify  the  method  for  calculating  the  compensation  neither  in  the 
case of withdrawal or cancellation (article 4), nor in the case of improper performance of 
the  contract  (article  5).88  This  issue  needs  to  be  examined  in  the  light  of  the  review  of 
the consumer acquis: the Green Paper consults both on the possible introduction of a set 
of  general  contractual  remedies  available  to  consumers  in  the  case  of  breach  of  any 
consumer  contract,  and  on  a  general  right  to  damages.  In  the  field  of  package  travel, 
private  initiatives  have  led  to  the  setting-up  of  voluntary  benchmarks  taken  up  in  the 
"Frankurter  Tabelle"  to  facilitate  the  calculation  of  refunds  in  case  of  non-fulfilment  of 
parts of the contract. 89 

h) Liability of organisers (Article 5) 
Article 5.1 generally provides that Member States shall take steps to ensure that retailers 
and/or  organisers  are  liable  for  the  proper  performance  of  the  contract  irrespective  of 
whether the obligations under the contract are to be performed by the organiser and/or 
the  retailer,  or  by  someone  else.  The  transposition  of  this  article  in  the  Member  States 
differs  significantly.  In  most  cases  the  organiser  is  liable,  including  in  cases  of 
p
ailer is often more limited. 
Differences  between  Member  States'  legislation  and  the  possibility  for  the  consumer  to 
assert his rights may then be problematic in particular in cases where the retailer and the 
organiser  are  established  in  different  Member  States.  Consideration  could  be  given  to 
whether a retailer who is selling products from organisers based in another country, be it 
te  or  a  third  country,  should  be  jointly  liable  in  all  cases.90  Such  a 
a
system must not, however, create internal barriers to trade. 

erforma ce by someone else. However, the liability of the ret

nother  Member  Sta

n

Consideration  could  also  be  given  to  whether  the  limitation  for  non-physical  damage 
under  the  contract  should  be  deleted,  or,  at  least,  as  to  whether  a  common  threshold 
should  be  introduced.  Finally,  according  to  the  ECJ91,  article  5  is  to  b
e  interpreted  as 
conferring  on  consumers,  in  principle,  a  right  to  compensation  for  non-economic  loss 
resulting from the non-performance or improper performance of the services constituting 
a package holiday. A provision recognising this right in the Directive could be considered. 
Most  Member  States  have  not  expressly  stipulated  for  the  compensation  for  non-
economic in the context of their package travel  law. When considering a revision of the 
consumer's  right  to  damages,  account  must  also  be  taken  of  the  outcome  of  the 
consultation  in  the  Green  Paper  on  the  possible  introduction  of  a  general  right  to 
damages for breach of contract and its ex

tent/coverage. 

i) Consumer complaints (Article 6) 
Article  6  provides  that,  in  cases  of  complaint,  the  organiser  and/or  retailer  or  his  local 
representative,  if  there  is  one,  must  make  attempts  to  find  appropriate  solutions 
promptly.  

According  to  many  stakeholders,  this  provision  appears  to  be  imprecise  and  leads  to 
confusion.92  It  may  therefore  need  to  be  clarified  how  the  terms  “prompt  efforts”  and 
lutions” should be interpreted, i.e. what to do when the organiser and/or 
appropriate so
“
retailer has no local representative, as well as where a consumer fails to communicate a 
problem to the organiser. In the latter case, the organiser does not have an opportunity 
to take action to put matters right, with the consequence that the consumer cannot claim 
damages at a later date.

87 Idem. 
88 Consumer Law Compendium, p. 215 et seq. 
89 http://kanzlei.de/reisem.htm. 
90 Working Document 2007, p 12. 
91 C-168/00 - Simone Leitner.  
92 Working Document 2007, p 12. 

PE 475.084 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

j) Security for Insolvency (Article 7) 
The  ECJ  has  clarified  that  all  risks  possibly  arising  from  the  insolvency  of  the  organiser 
shall be fully covered.93 Article 7 does not prescribe how the obligation for the organiser 
and/or  retailer  to  provide  sufficient  evidence  of  security  for  the  refund  of  money  paid, 
and for the repatriation of the consumer in the event of insolvency, is to be implemented. 
The  wording  "sufficient  evidence  of  security"  is  imprecise.  As  a  result,  a  multitude  of 
systems  have  appeared,  e.g.  collective  funds,  bank  guarantees  and insurance  schemes. 
There  seem  to  be  significant  differences  in  the  level  of  consumer  protection  across 
Europe and anti-competitive situations may occur.  

Furthermore,  it  may  be  complicated  for  an  authority  in  one  Member  State  to  conclude 
whether an organiser who claims to have set a guarantee within another Member States 
system  thereby  provides  sufficient  protection.  The  Commission  is  aware  of  allegations 
that  some  Member  St tea s  may  require  a  business  trading  cross  border  to  comply  with 
their  national  rules,  although  the  business
  has  complied  with  the  rules  of  its  country  of 
establishment.94  This  is,  however,  not  per
mitted  according  to  ECJ  decisions  on  mutual 
recognition.95  

In  November  2009,  the  European  Parliament  issued  a  new  resolution  dealing  with 
general  aspects  of  consumer  protection  which  called  for  the  Commission  to  'propose, 
when reviewing the Travel Package Directive, an extension for repatriation or re-routing 
for the passengers [of airlines which go bankrupt] concerned'. An overwhelming majority 
of  stakeholders  (Member  States'  Authorities,  consumer  organisations  and  industry 
associations) are in favour of updating and clarifying the existing Directive as described 
above.  The  European  Parliament  Resolution  called  for  the  current  wide  variations  in 
interpretation  by  Member  States  to  be  significantly  reduced  in  order  to  give  equally 
effective consumer protection throughout the EU. The Commission, in its 1999 report on 
f  principles  that  should  be 
the  Implementation  of  the  Directive,  also  included  a  list  o
o

bserved by national measures transposing Article 7 of the Directive.  

One option may be the introduction of a uniform system across the EU. As pointed out in 
stakeholder  contacts  with  the Commission,  it  is  unlikely  that  a  consistent  pan-European 
approach  to  financial  protection  can  be  implemented,  since  different  measures  will  suit 
different  geographical  markets.96  A  possibility  may  be  to  leave  the  national  status  quo 
and reinforce cooperation between the different Member States' authorities to overcome 
significant  differences  and  gaps  in  the  system  and  encourage  the  exchange  of  best 
practices. 

It  should  also  be  considered  whether  the  position  of  passengers  of  bankrupt  airlines 
n  and  compensation  for  those 
should  be  strengthened.  There  is  hardly  any  protectio
passengers under the Package Travel Directive. 

First of all, airline bankruptcy is not a case of Article 7 of the Directive. This Article only 
covers the insolvency of the organiser and/or the retailer. However, the airline is neither 
organiser no

r retailer as defined in Art. 2(2) and (3) of the Directive. 

Second  of  all,  those  passengers,  who  have  only  purchased  transportation  by  an  airline, 
are  not  covered  by  the  protection  of  the Package  Travel  Directive.  The  Directives  scope 
only applies to the purchase of a “package” which, according to Art. 2(1) of the Directive 
means  the  pre-arranged  combination  of  transport  (lit.  a)  and/or  accommodation  (lit.  b) 
and/or other tourist services not ancillary to transport or accommodation and accounting 
for a significant proportion of the package (lit. c). If the transportation by the airline has 
been combined with accommodation and/or othe
r tourist services, the only protection in 

93 ECJ judgment of 14 March 1998, Case C-364/96 – Verein für Konsumenteninformation.  
94 Working Document 2007, p 12. 
95 ECJ judgment of 1 December 1998,
96 Working Document 2007, p 13. 

 Case C 410/96 – Ambry.  

27 

PE 475.084 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

case of airline bankruptcy is provided in Art. 5(1), (2) of the Directive.97 In this case the 
organiser/and or retailer is obliged to give prompt assistance to a consumer in difficulty.  

Therefore, the Commission might consider, when reviewing the Package Travel Directive, 
r the passengers of bankrupt airlines.98 This 
an extension for repatriation or re-routing fo
could  be  done  by  extending  the  scope  of  Article  7  on  cases  of  insolvency  of  other 
suppliers of services, like airlines. 

k) Inconsistencies or ambiguities 

Some potentially significant inconsistencies or ambiguities in the Directive are: 

ecause  the  ECJ  (C-400/00  –  Club-Tour)  has  clarif

•  Use  of  the  term  ‘pre-arranged’  in  the  definition  of  ‘package’  (Art.  2(1))  is  misleading 
b
ied  that  combinations  of  tourist 
services  tailored  by  a  travel  agency  to  the  specific  requests  of  the  consumer  are  also 
covered. 

• The notion of ‘organiser’ (Art. 2(2)) does not equate with the commonly used definition 
of “acting professionally in the course of his business” and also includes private persons 
and  non-  profit-making  organisations;  the  exact  meaning  of  acting  “occasionally”  is 
unclear. 

•  The  notion  of  ‘consumer’  (Art.  2(4))  deviates  substantively  from  the  definition  in  the 
other consumer protection directives. 

•  By  using  the  wording  “organiser  and/or  retailer”,  the  Directive  did  not  clearly  decide 
whether the organiser, the retailer or both carry obligations vis-à-vis the consumer. This 
decision is left to the Member States’ discretion. They have to ensure that at least one of 
the  two  is  liable  in  any  case.  The  Member  States’  transposition  laws  do  not  only  show 
great differences, but have also created many uncertainties. Especially in those Member 
States that provided for a different and separate liability for the organiser and the retailer 
(with  each  of  them  being  liable  for  problems  occurring  in  their  respective  spheres),  it 
may be rather unclear who is liable for what. 

•  Unclear  formal  requirements  for  the  information  due  under  Art.  4(1)(a)  and  (b)  (“in 
writing or any other appropriate form”). 

• Unclear formal requirements for the contract in Art. 4(2) (“in writing or such other form 
as  is  comprehensible  and  accessible  to  the  consumer”;  “copy  of  these  terms”).  In 
particular, there should be clarification of the extent to which information has to be given 
on  paper  (if  at  all),  on  a  durable  medium,  or  whether  other  electronic  forms  suffice.  A 
ctive  has  to  clarify  this  for  each  item  of  information.  A  model  could  be  the 
re
  requirements  for  information  duties  of  the  Consumer  Rights  Directive,  or  the 
formal
rather  similar,  but  slightly  more  developed,  information  duties  of  the  Proposal  for  a 
Common European Sales Law. 

vised  dire

  It  is  unclear  whether  exemptions  from  information  requirements  in  the  case  of  last-
•
minute  contracts  are  applicable  only  with  regard  to  Art  4(2)(b),  or  also  with  regard  to 
other information duties (in particular Art. 4(1)). 

  The  wording  in  Art.  4(3)  (“having  given  the  organiser  ‘or’  the  retailer  reasonable 
•
notice”)  does  not  clarify  whether  the  Member  States  or  the  consumer  may  choose  the 

97 See also: Final Report: Study on Consumer Protection against Aviation Bankruptcy, prepa
General Energy and Transport Euro
98  European  Parliament  resolution  of  25.  November  2009  on  pa
bankruptcy, P7_TA(2009)0092, No

pean Commission, 7.1.2009, p. 25 

. 5. 

ssenger  compensation  in  the  event  of  airline 

red for: Directorate-

PE 475.084 

28 

                                                
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

addressee.  Moreover,  it  is  unclear  whether  “reasonable  notice”  refers  only  to  a 
reasonable period of time, and indeed how long such a period should be. 

• It is unclear whether Art. 4(4) (“upward ‘or’ downward revision”) requires transposition 
to  deal  with  both  possibilities  (and  not  only  with  the  possibility  to  increase  [and  not  to 
decrease] the price). 

•  The  use  of  the  term  “withdrawal”  in  Art.  4(5)  and  (6)  may  be  confused  with  the 
‘cooling-off periods’ provided for in other Directives, which are commonly described as a 
“right of withdrawal”. 

•  In  Art.  4(7),  it  is  unclear  whe
ther  the  duty  to  compensate  the  consumer  “where 
appropriate” constitutes an independent specific liability rule or just refers to the general 
rule in Art 5(2) of the Directive. 

• Article 5 does not explicitly state that – according to the ruling of the ECJ in th
e Simone 
L
eitner  case  –  the  consumer  must  also  have  a  right  to  compensation  for  non-economic 
loss  and,  in  particular,  that  such  compensation  can  arise  from  the  loss  of  enjoyment 
suffered by the consumer because of the improper performance of the travel contract. 

3.1.2.  Recommendations and an evaluation of their importance 

In  order  to  remove  ambiguities,  inconsistencies  or  barriers  to  trade,  the  following 
solutions could be enacted:99 

ccording t

•  Definition  of  ‘package’:  inclusion  of  tailor-made  packages  offered  by  travel  agencies 
o the ECJ ruling in Club-Tour. This would mean deleting the misleading term 
a
“pre-arranged”;  should  there  be  a  political  decision  to  extend  the  scope,  this  could,  in 
particular,  include  packages  with  a  duration  of  less  than  24  hours  or  without  overnight 
a

ccommodation. 

•  Definition  of  ‘consumer’:  bringing  the  definition  into  line  with  other  definitions  in  EU 
consumer law – or clarifying that business trips are also included. 

•  Definition  of  ‘organiser’:  bringing  the  definition  into  line  with  other  definitions  of 
“professional”  or  “supplier”  in  EU  contract  law,  thereby  also  deleting  the  phrase  “other 
than occasionally”. 

  Clarification  that  the  organiser  is  obliged  a

•
Member States to determine whether the retailer is jointly liable. 

nd  liable  in  all  cases  and  that  it  is  left  to 

  Introduction  of  a  specific  double  inform

ation  duty  on  all  businesses  who  organise 
•
package  trips  as  well  as  retailers,  namely  (1)  to  inform  the  consumer  that  the  service 
falls under EU Package Travel Legislation and (2) to indicate the identity and address of 
the tour organiser as being the person responsible and liable for all consumer rights and 
claims under the EU Package Travel Legislation. 

• Definition of the terms “in writing” or “any other appropriate form” in Art. 4(1)(a) and 
(b),  as  well  as  of  “in  writing  or  such  other  form  as  is  comprehensible  and  accessible  to 
the consumer” and “copy of these terms” in Art. 4(2), thereby possibly making use of the 
(f)  of  Directive  2002/65.  This 
d
would also adapt the Directive to 

efinition  of  “another  durable  medium”  as  under  Art.  2

the requirements of e-commerce. 

•  Clarification  of  whether,  in  the  case  of  last-minute  contracts,  exemptions  from 
information  requirements  may  also  be  permissible  with  regard  to  Art.  3(2)  (brochure) 
and Art. 4(1)(a) (information to be provided before conclusion of contract). 

99 See also Summary of responses, especially pp. 3, 4 and 6. 

29 

PE 475.084 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

• Clarification that the wording in Art. 4(3) (“having given the organiser ‘or’ the retailer 
reasonable  notice”)  leaves  the  choice  of  addressee  to  the  consumer  (and  not  to  the 
Member  States);  moreover,  clarification  of  whether  “reasonable  notice”  refers  only  to  a 
re
asonable  period  for  giving  notice,  and  of  how  long  such  a  period  should  be;  finally, 
clarification  that  Member  States  do  not  have  to  introduce  requirement  of  form  (e.g.  in 
writing) for the giving of notice. 

eal with both possibilities (replacement of ‘or’ by ‘and’). 

• Clarification that the transposition of Art. 4(4) (“upward ‘or’ downward 
d
•  Clarification  of  whether  in  Art.  4(7)  the  duty  to  compensate  the  consumer  “where 
appropriate” constitutes an independent specific liability rule or just refers to the general 
rule in Art. 5(2) of the

revision”) must 

 Directive. 

•  Clarification  that  Art.  5  also  grants  a  right  to  compensation  for  non-economic  loss,  in 
particular, that such loss can arise from the loss of enjoyment (Simone Leitner). 

 Regulation of the possibility to contractually limit compensation in the case of damages 
•
resulting  from  non-performance  or  improper  performance  of  services  included  in  the 
package in Art. 5(2). 

  Insertion  of  a  general  provision  obliging  Member  States  to  ensure  that  adequate  and 
•
effective  means  exist  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  Directive  in  the  interests  of 
consumers. 

al 
In order to ensure that the Member States can no longer introduce or maintain addition
instruments protecting consumers and thereby create barriers to trade, one option could 
as  like  pre-contractual 
be  to    consider  full  harmonisation  in  the  most  sensitive  are
formation duties, brochures and formal requirements for information duties. This might 
in
also cover contractual exclusion clauses.100 

  has,  however,  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  full  harmonisation  in  the  area  of  substantive 
It
Contract  Law,  in  particular  with  regard  to  rules  on  remedies  for  non-performance,  may 
be  very  difficult  to  integrate  into  the  existing  national  legal  systems.  In  order  to  be 
operable,  a  fully  harmonised  system  requires  a  certain  level  of  completeness  in,  for 
example,  the  remedies  granted  to  consumers  in  cases  of  non-performance  or  defective 
s  not  possible  simply  to  fully  harmonise  existing  claims  for  damages 
performance.  It  i
nder Article 5 of the Package Travel Directive without providing a comprehensive set of 
u
rules on conformity and non-conformity remedies other than damages (e.g. termination, 
 extent and calculation 
reduction of price, remedying non-performance) and rules on the
f  damages.  The  famous  ECJ  case  of  “Simone  Leitner”  (which  clarifies  a  claim  for  non-
o
commercial damages) is only one example of this.  

instead of a full harmonisation directive, an optional instrument were 
The same is true if, 
nacted which operated either as a self-standing set of rules or covered the vast majority 
e
of situations likely to arise under the package travel contract. Both full harmonisation and 
an optional instrument therefore need to regulate matters more co

mprehensively. 

3.2.  An Update on the Latest Legislative Developments 

There are two main legislative developments which are worth mentioning when considering 
the reform of the Package Travel Directive: the Consumer Credit Rights Directive and the 
proposal for an Optional Instrument as regards e-

commerce. 

100 Consumer Law Compendium, p. 216. 

PE 475.084 

30 

                                                
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Improvements in the light of the Consumer Rights Directive 

3.2.1. 
Package  travel  falling  under  the  scope  of  the  Package  Travel  Directive  is  explicitly 
excluded  from  the  scope  of  the  Consumer  Rights  Directive  and  other  types  of  package 
travel would also normally be excluded from the scope of the new directive owing to their 
minor value, as already is the case under the old Distance Selling Directive.101 In cases of 
distance selling, consumers booking a package travel do not have a right to withdraw and 
do  not  profit  from  the  modernised  information  duties  of  the  directive.  This  is  also  the 
case for package travel contracts concluded on the doorstep. To this extent, the position 
of  consumers  has  actually  deteriorated  in  comparison  to  the  situation  under  the  old 
Doorstep Selling Directive.  

el  Directive  thus  needs  to  consider  whether  consumers 
Any  reform  of  the  Package  Trav
who  conclude  package  travel  contracts  in  an  off-premises  or  distance  selling  situation 
need specific protection. Since a general right of withdrawal would probably be too harsh 
for  tour  organisers,  protection  similar  to  the  scheme  of  the  Consumer  Rights  Directive 
would  mainly  consist  of  information  duties.  Since,  however,  the  Package  Travel  Law 
regulates many information duties in any case, the distance and doorstep selling specific 
n  into  account  when  reforming  the  Package  Travel 
aspects  could  probably  be  take
Directive.  

gress  in 
At  the  very  least,  the  Consumer  Rights  Directive  offers  some  examples  of  pro
legislative technique. One possible improvement in light of the Consumer Rights Directive 
would be to copy-and-paste the definition of consumer. The advantage would be that the 
same  definition  of  consumer  applies  in  yet  another  European  law  on  consumer 
however,  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  would  change  the  personal 
protection.  It  should, 
scope of application. The old definition in the current Package Travel Directive seems to 
include also trips concluded for business purposes (e.g. a package consisting of flight and 
hotel  accommodation  for  a  business  trip).  A  policy  decision  is  needed  on  whether 
el Law should be part of Consumer Law (then copy-pasting of the consumer 
Package Trav
definition of the Consumer Rights Directive is advisable) or if Package Travel Law should 
be designed as a part of a general travel law. In this case, new legislation should grant 
travellers  specific  rights  by  sole  virtue  of  their  status  as    travellers,  irrespective  of 
whether  they  are  consumers  or  not.  The  model  for  this  technique  is  the  Air  Passenger 
Rights Regulation as well as similar regulation for train and ferry services. Only for some 
nts,  such  as  protection  against  the  risk  of 
consumer  specific  protections  instrume
insolvency of the organiser, could remain part of consumer law.

3.2.2.  The latest legislative developments as regards e-commerce: European sales law 
The  current  state  of  EU  Legislation  in  the  field  of  e-commerce  and  the  perspectives  for 
further development have been outlined in the recent Commission Communication on the 
Digital  single  market  for  e-commerce  and  online  services102.  The  Communication 
describes  the  state  of  EU  e-commerce  legislation  as  a  “patchwork”  of  many  different 
laws, rules, standards and practises, often with little or no interoperability. A key piece of 
legislation, the E-Commerce Directive, was enacted in 2000. According to the conclusions 
of the Commission, a revision of that directive is not required at the moment. However, 
the future major legislative development in this area will probably be the regulation on a 
c

ommon European sales law which is currently in the legis

lative process. 

E-commerce  is  increasingly  used  for  marketing  package  travel  and  concluding  package 
travel  contracts.  Similar  to  the  situation  in  the  area  of  sales  law,  the  existing  of  27 
different legal systems might hinder pan EU marketing and selling of package travel. In 
ing  an 
he  field  of  sales  law,  the  Commission  seeks  to  solve  this  problem  by  install
t
ws.  A  rather 
optional  instrument,  which  would  exist  alongside  the  27  Member  States  la

101Respectively, Art. 3(3)(g) and Art. 2(4) Consumer Rights Directive, 2011/83 EU. 
102Commission  Communication  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
and the Committee of teh Regions, A coherent framework for building trust in the Digital Single Market for e-
commerce and online services, Brussels 2

011, COM (2011) 942. 

31 

PE 475.084 

 
                                              
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

similar  solution  could  be  feasible  in  the  area  of  package  travel.  On  the  basis  of  the 
already  existing  general  parts  of  the  proposal  for  a  common  European  sales  law,  a 
regulation for a common European travel law could be developed. 

Even  if  EU  legislation  should  opt  for  the  more  traditional  means  of 
regulation  by  simply 
revising  the  Package  Travel  Directive,  the  revision  could  make  use  of  the  achievements 
made  in  the  course  of  the  preparation  of  the  Common  European  Sales  Law.  The  most 
obvious example is the claim for damages. The current Package Travel Directive contains 
in  its  article 5  a  claim  for  damages  of  the  consumer  against  the  tour  organiser.  In  the 
famous  case,  “Simone  Leitner”,  the  ECJ  held  that  this  claim  also  includes  damages  for 
non-material loss because of lost or spoilt holidays.103 A revised Package Travel Directive 
could  regulate  this  expressly  and  thereby  make  use  of  the  corresponding  provisions  on 
damages  in  the  Common  European  Sales  Law.  Other  parts  from  this  proposal,  which 
could  be  used  as  a  source  of  inspiration  and  building  material  for  a  revised  Package 
ovisions  on  termination,  on  excuse  or  on  restitution  after 
Travel  Directive,  are  the  pr
termination.

3.3.  Overarching proposals for Reform: greater clarity 

bsolute  ter

3.3.1.  Clarity for intermediaries: An EU label  
As  has  already  been  fully  exposed,  the  Directive  demonstrates  a  lack  of  precision  in 
determining  which  duties  apply  to  intermediaries.  Greater  precision  would  increase  the 
level of consumer protection. To summarise, the issue is less who should be responsible in 
ms,  but  rather  clarity  in  determining  which  person  is  responsible.  Only  once 
a
there  is  greater  precision  in  the  latter  issue,  can  there  be  meaningful  discussion  on  the 
former and there are necessarily greater marginal returns to be had for raising the level of 
consumer protection throughout the EU by tackling the former. In providing greater legal 
certainty  and  transparency,  it  is  likely,  as  a  positive  secondary  effect,  that  this  will 
correspond in increasing the number of cross-border transactions.   

A  solution  could  be  the  introduction  of  an  abstract  duty  for  the  person  with  whom  the 
consumer contracts to state in the contract:  

 

 

the  nature  of  the  contract  as  being  a  contract  on  package  travel  (or  a  ‘warning’ 
that the contract does not fall under the EU legislation) and 
the person against whom which consumer rights can be exercised. 

Such regulation at EU level would require further specification in the corresponding national 
legislation. Again, the decisive issue is not subjectively who should be available for contact, 
but objectively specifying a particular person.   

 contract, as well as the 
Initially, the proposition of imposing an abstract duty to label the
proposal  of  a  new  kind  of  labelling  icon,  might  be  met  with  concerns  that  there  could  be
the  attempt,  on  the  side  of  the  parties  contracting  with  the  consumer,  to  avoid  such 
labelling. Certainly, there would be additional costs as a result, such as, insurance for the 
person  contracting  with  the  consumer.104  However,  as  experience  has  shown,  even  the 
requirement  of  providing  sufficient  evidence  of  security  for  the  case  of  insolvency  is 
satisfied  in  practice.  Concerns  grounded  upon  evasion  of  the  duty  are  therefore,  in  all 
likelihood  unfounded.  In  reality,  it  is  more  likely  that  the  requirement  of  a  label,  such  as 
the one proposed here, will not result in attempts of avoidance. Quite to the contrary, its 
introduction would probably alleviate attempts of avoidance because the duty is devoid of 
ambiguity and absolute.  

s far as the abstract duty to label a contract on a package travel is concerned, one might, 
A
in addition, see the risk of “letter-box companies” being formed, the purpose of which is to 
be referred to as responsible under the contract and then to become insolvent so that the 

103 C-168/00 - Simone Leitner. 
104 See Study on Consumer Detriment (Fn 61), p. 15.    

PE 475.084 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

actual  organisation  behind  the  letter-box  escapes  liability.  In  order  to  prevent  such 
attempts, it would be necessary to impose the duty to name either the party organising or 
retailing, or those representing such parties, as a contact person. Thereby, there is greater 
clarity for the consumer but also evasion tactics can be hindered. 

Because the level of consumer protection in the EU is not yet satisfactory, a reasonable 
response would be to consider taking further steps such as the ones proposed here. 

3

.3.2.  A European Travel Code ? 

The current Package Travel Directive uses a definition of consumer which deviates from 
the  definitions  in  other  consumer  protection  directives  in  so  far  as  travel  for  business 
purposes  is  also  protected  under  the  Directive.  Moreover,  the  Directive  defines  the 
consumer as being the one who concludes the package contract and not necessarily the 
one who travels. A basic policy decision has to be made on whether just consumers (i.e. 
persons  who  are  acting  for  non-commercial  purposes)  or  every  traveller  should  be 
protected. Moreover, for cases where the party to a travel contract and the person who 
travels  are  different  persons,  it  has  to  be  clarified  whether  the  one,  the  other  or  both 
shall  have  rights  under  the  Directive.  With  a  view  to  an  overarching  EU  Travel  Law,  it 
might be advisable to protect at least the person who travels irrespective of whether this 
person is a consumer or not. 

Legal certainty and consumer confidence could be increased by a Europea
n Travel Code 
which  would  firstly  require  a  consolidating  law  of  the  patchwork  of  exist
ing  European 
legislation  and  then  generalise  some  rules  on
  pre-contractual  information  duties,  the 
basic obligations under the most relevant travel contracts and consumer remedies. Such 
a  general  European  Travel  Code  could  be  based  on  the  enormous  preparatory  work  for 
the Draft Common Frame of Reference and the Common European Sales Law. This would 
also ensure coherence between the different pieces of European legislation in the area of 
consumer and contract law. 

4. GENERAL CONCLUSION 

R
eform  of  the  Package  Travel  Directive  should  be  seen  as  part  of  an  overarching  travel 
and tourism law of the EU. It might even be advisable to consolidate the various different 
pieces  of  EU  Legislation  into  one  legislative  instrument  which  could  be  called  the  “EU 
Travel Code”. 

gislative coherency, it 
Two specific recommendations can be made. In the interests of le
ons should be 
is essential that greater precision be given to two issues: first, which pers
protected under the legislation and, second, which parties should be obliged to grant this 
protection. 

efinition of consumer which deviates from 
The current Package Travel Directive uses a d
the  definitions  in  other  consumer  protection  directives  in  so  far  as  travel  for  business 
purposes  is  also  protected  under  the  Directive.  Moreover,  the  Directive  defines  the 
consumer as being the one who concludes the package contract and not necessarily the 
one who travels. A basic policy decision has to be made on whether just consumers (i.e. 
persons  who  are  acting  for  non-commercial  purposes)  or  every  traveller  should  be 
protected. Moreover, for cases where the party to a travel contract and the person who 
travels  are  different  persons,  it  has  to  be  clarified  whether  the  one,  the  other  or  both 
shall  have  rights  under  the  Directive.  With  a  view  to  an  overarching  EU  Travel  Law,  it 
might be advisable to protect at least the person who travels irrespective of whether this 
person is a consumer or not. 

As to the other party – the party 
–  an  improved  Package  Travel  Directive  w

which is obliged to grant the protection of the Directive 
ould  clarify  which  parties  with  whom  the 

33 

PE 475.084 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

consumer  deals,  in  particular  the  organiser  or  the  retailer,  owe  what  protection  to  the 
consumer or traveller. It is suggested here, that businesses who organise package trips 
as  well  as  retailers  should  be  under  a  specific  double  information  duty,  namely  (1)  to 
inform  the  consumer  that  the  service  falls  under  EU  Legislation  and  (2)  to  indicate  the 
identity and address of the tour organiser as being the person responsible and liable for 
all consumer rights and claims under the EU Package Travel Legislation. 

PE 475.084 

34 

Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

REFERENCES 

  Literature 

o  Commission  Communication  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  teh  Regions,  A 
coherent  framework  for  building  trust  in  the  Digital  Single  Market  for  e-
commerce and online services, Brussels 2011. 

o  Department  for  Business,  Enterprise  and  Regulatory  Reform,  What  is  a 

package? A guidance note for travel organisers, 2008. 

o  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
common rules for the operator of air transport services in the Community, 
COM(2006)396 final. 

o  Report  on  the  Implementation  of  Directive  90/314/Estonia  on  Package 
Travel and Holiday Tours in the Domestic Legislation of EC Member States 
[SEC(1999) 1800 final]. 

o  Schulte-Nölke/Twigg-Flesner/Ebers  (Edit.),  The  Comparative  Analysis  of 

the EC Consumer Law, Munich 2008.  

o  Study  on  Consumer  Detriment  in  the  area  of  Dynamic  Packages  for  the 

European Commission, by London Economics, November 2009. 

o  Summary  of 

responses 

to  gather 
stakeholders' opinions on the existing problems and preferred solutions in 
order  to  identify  preferred  policy  options  as  part  of  the  Commission’s 
review of the Package Travel Directive, March 2010. 

the  consultation 

launched 

to 

o  Working  Document  of  the  European  Commission,  Summary  of  Responses 
to  the  consultation  on  the  Council  Directive  90/314/EEC  of  13  June  1990 
on package travel, package holidays and package tours, 2010. 

o  Working  Document  on  the  Council  Directive  90/314/EEC  of  13  June  1990 

on package travel, package holidays and package tours, 2007. 

o  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  on  Online  services,  including  E-

commerce, in the Single Market, Brussels 11.1.2012. 

  Legislation 

European Union Directives 

o  Directive 2011/83/EU of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, OJ L 304/64 

of 22.11.2011. 

o  Council  Directive  93/13/EEC  of  5  April  1993  on  unfair  terms  in  consumer 

contracts, OJ L 095 of 21.04.1993. 

o  Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package 

holidays and package tours, OJ L 158 of 23.06.1990. 

National Law 

o  Bulgarian Law on Tourism. 

o  Cyprian Package, Travel Holidays and Tours Law. 

o  Czech Civil Code. 

35 

PE 475.084 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

o  Estionian Law of Obligations. 

o  German

 Civil Code, Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch. 

o  Hungarian Civil Code. 

o  H

ungarian Government Decree No. 213/1996. 

o  Hungarian Government Decree No. 214/1996. 

o  Lithuanian Cabinet Regulation No. 163. 

o  Lithuanian Civil Code. 

o  Romanian Government Ordinance 107/1999 on package travel. 

o  Romanian Law 631 of 16 November 2001. 

o  Slovakian Civil Code. 

o  Slovenian Code of Obl

igations. 

  Cas

es  

o  ECJ,  12.03.2002,  C-168/00  -  Simone  Leitner  v  TUI  Deutschland  GmbH  & 

Co. KG. 

o  ECJ, 30.04.2002, C-400/00 - Club Tour. 

o  ECJ, 15.06.1999, C-140/97 - Rechberger Case. 

o  ECJ, 14.05.1998, C-364/96 - Verein für Konsumenteninformation. 

o  ECJ, 01.12.1998, C-410/96 - Ambry Case. 

o  ECJ, 08.10.1996, C-178/94 - Dillenkofer Case. 

PE 475.084 

36 

 
 
 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

A

NNEX 

Table 1: Im

plementation of the Directive in all Member States 

Member 
State 

General regulation 

Special act on packag

e 

travel 

Allgemeines Bürgerliches 
Gesetzbuch (ABGB)
 (Civil 
Code) 

Konsumentenschutzgesetz
(Consumer Protection Act) 

Austria 

Loi du 16/2/1994 régissant 
le contrat d'organisation de 
voyages et le contrat 
d'intermédiaire de voyages 
/ Wet tot regeling van het 
contract tot reisorganisatie 
en reisbemiddeling (Act of 
16 February 1994 
regulating the package 
travel contracts and the 
travel intermediation 
contracts FR/NL) 

Belgium 

Government decree 

Verordnung des 
Bundesministers für 
wirtschaftliche 
Angelegenheiten übe
Ausübungsvorschrifte
das Reisebürogewerbe 
(Reisebüroausübungs-VO) 
(Regulation on travel 
agencies) 

r 
n für 

r-

Reisebürosicherungsve
ordnung (RSV) (Regulation 
on travel agencies 
implementing Art. 7 
Package Travel Directive) 

Arrêté royal du 1/2/1995 
déterminant les conditions 
de l'assurance de la 
responsabilité 
professionnelle des 
organisateurs et 
intermédiaires de voyages 
envers les voyageurs / 
Koninklijk besluit tot 
vaststelling van de 
voorwaarden van de 
verzekering van de 
professionele 
aansprakelijkheid van de 
reisorganisatoren en de 
reisbemiddelaars jegens de 
reizigers (Royal Decree of 1 
February 1995 determining 
the assurance conditions of 
the liability of travel 
organisers and retailers 
FR/NL) 

37 

PE 475.084 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Arrêté royal du 11/7/2003 
portant fixation de règles 
particulières en matière 
d'indication du prix dans le 
secteur du voyage / 
Koninklijk besluit houdende 
vaststelling van bijzondere 
regels inzake 
prijsaanduiding in de 
reizensector (Royal Decree 
of 11 July 2003 containing 
special rules for price 
indication in the travel 
sector FR/NL) 

Arrêté royal du 25/4/1997 
portant exécution de 
l'article 36 de la loi du 16 
février 1994 régissant le 
contrat d'organisation de 
voyages et le contrat 
d'intermédiaire de voyages 
/ Koninklijk besluit tot 
uitvoering van artikel 36 
van de wet van 16 februari 
1994 tot regeling van het 
contract tot reisorganisatie 
en reisbemiddeling (Royal 
Decree putting into effect 
Article 36 of the Act of 16 
February 1994 regulating 
the package travel 
contracts and the travel 
intermediation contract 
FR/NL) 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

ЗАКОН ЗА ТУРИЗМА (Law 
on tourism) 

PE 475.084 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Cyprus 

Czech 
Republic 

Denmark 

O περί Οργανωμένων 
Ταξιδιών, Διακοπών και 
Περιηγήσεων Νόμος του 
1998, Ν.51(Ι)/98 όπως 
τροποποιήθηκε από τον 
περί Οργανωμένων 
Ταξιδιών, Διακοπών και 
Περιηγήσεων 
(Τροποποιητικός) Νόμο του 
1999, Ν.72(Ι)/99. (Τhe 
Package Travel, Holidays 
and Tours Law of 1998, 
L.51(I)/98) 

Zákon č. 159/1999 O 
některých pod-mínkách 
podnikání v oblasti 
cestovního ruchu (Act No. 
159/1999 concerning 
conditions of entrepreneurs 
in the area of tourism and 
travel agencies) 

Zákon č. 40/1964 Sb., 
občanský zákoník č. 
28/2011 Sb. (Civil Code) 

Lov nr.472/1993 om 
pakkerejser (Act no. 
472/1993 on Package 
Travels) 

Bekendtgørelse nr. 
776/1993 om pakkerejser 
(Regulation no. 776/1993 
on Package Travels) 

Lov nr. 315/1997 om 
Rejsegarantifonden som 
ændret ved lov nr. 
164/2000 og lov nr. 
207/2004 (Act no. 
315/1997 on the Travel 
Guarantee Fund) 

Bekendtgørelse nr. 
503/2004 om registrering 
og sikkerhedsstillelse mv. i 
Rejsegarantifonden 
(Regulation no. 503/2004 
on registration and security 
in the Travel Guarantee 
Fund) 

Estonia 

Võlaõigusseadus (Law of 
Obligations Act) 

Turismiseadus (Tourism 
Act) 

Finland 

Laki valmismatkaliikkeistä 
939/2008 (Act on Package 
Travel Undertakings 
939/2008) 

39 

PE 475.084 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Valmismatkalaki 
1079/1994 (Package Travel 
Act 1079/1994) 

Code du tourisme(Tourism 
Code) 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch 
(BGB) (Civil Code) 

Gesetz gegen den 
unlauteren Wettbewerb 
(UWG) (Act against unfair 
competition) 

PE 475.084 

40 

Décret no 94-490 du 
15/06/1994 pris en 
application de l'article 31 
de la loi Numéro 92-645 du 
13/07/1992 fixant les 
conditions d'exercice des 
activités relatives à 
l'organisation et à la vente 
de voyages ou de séjours 
(Decree No.94-490 on the 
conditions to exercise the 
activities relating to the 
organisation and the sale of 
packages or journeys) 

Décret n°2006-1229 du 6 
octobre 2006 relatif à la 
partie réglementaire du 
code du tourisme 
(codification du décret 94-
490) (Decree n° 2006-
1229 creating article 
R.211-1 etc by codification 
of  Decree No.94-490) 

Décret n°2007-669 du 2 
mai 2007 relatif à 
l’obligation d’informer les 
passagers de l’identité du 
transporteur aérien 
(Decree n°2007-669 of 
May 2nd 2007 dealing with 
information of tourists on 
the aircraft company 
name.) 

Verordnung über Infor-
mations- und Nachweis-
pflichten nach bürgerlichem 
Recht (BGB-Informations-
pflichten-Verordnung - 
BGB-InfoV) (Regulation on 
duties to supply 
information in civil law) 

 
 
 
 
 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Preisangabenverordnung 
(Price indication regulation) 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

1959. évi IV. törvény a 
Polgári Törvénykönyvről 
(Civil Code) 

Proedriko Diatagma 339/96 
peri organomenon 
taksidion se simmorfosi 
pros tin odigia 90/314 (EEL 
158/59) gia ta organomena 
taksidia kai tis 
organomenes diakopes kai 
periigiseis (Decree No. 
339/96 on packages 
transposing Directive 
90/314) 

213/1996. (XII.23.) 
Korm.rend. az 
utazásszervező- és 
közvetítő tevékenységről 
(Government Decree No. 
213/1996. (XII.23.) on 
Travel Organisation and 
Agency Activities) 

214/1996. (XII.23.) 
Korm.rend. az utazási és 
utazást közvetítő 
szerződésekről 
(Government Decree No. 
214/1996. (XII.23.) on 
Travel Contract and 
Mediation of Travel) 

Package Holidays and 
Travel Trade Act, 1995 
(Package Holidays and 
Travel Trade Act, 1995) 

Italy 

Codice del consumo 
(Consumer Code) 

41 

PE 475.084 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Patērētāju tiesību 
aizsardzības likums 
(Consumer Rights 
Protection Law) 

Tūrisma likums (Tourism 
Law) 

Latvia 

Noteikumi Nr. 67 
"Noteikumi par kompleksa 
tūrisma pakalpojuma 
sagatavošanas un 
īstenošanas kārtību, 
klientam sniedzamo 
informāciju un kompleksā 
tūrisma pakalpojuma 
sniedzēja un klienta 
tiesībām un pienākumiem" 
(Cabinet Regulation Nr. 67 
"Regulations regarding the 
Procedures for the 
Preparation and 
Implementation of a 
Package Tourism Service, 
Information to Be Provided 
to a Client, and the Rights 
and Duties of a Package 
Tourism Service Provider 
and a Client“) 

Lietuvos Respublikos 
Civilinis Kodeksas (Civil 
Code) 

Lietuvos Respublikos 
turizmo įstatymas (Law on 
Tourism) 

Lithuania 

Lietuvos Respublikos 
vartotojų teisių apsaugos 
įstatymas (Law on 
Consumer Protection) 

Luxembourg 

Loi du 14 juin 1994 portant 
réglementation des 
conditions d’exercice des 
activités relatives à 
l’organisation et à la vente 
de voyage ou de séjours 
(Package Travel Act of 14 
June 1994) 

Règlement grand-ducal du 
4 novembre 1997 
déterminant les éléments 
de l'information préalable 
et les dispositions du 
contrat relatifs aux 
voyages, vacances ou 
séjours (Decree of 4 
November 1997 on pre-
contractual information and 
contract conditions of 
package travel contracts) 

PE 475.084 

42 

 
 
 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Att dwar Servizzi ta’ l-
Ivvjaggar u tat-Turizmu 
ghal Malta (Malta Travel 
and Tourism Services Act) 

Regolamenti ta’ l-2000 
dwar Pakkett ta’ l-
Ivvjaggar, Pakkett ta’ 
Vaganzi u Pakkett ta’ Tours 
(Package Travel, Package 
Holidays and Package 
Tours Regulations, 2000) 

Burgerlijk Wetboek (Dutch 
Civil Code) 

Règlement grand-ducal du 
4 novembre 1997 
déterminant le montant, les 
modalités et l’utilisation de 
la garantie financiè (Decree 
of 4 November 1997 on the 
amount, conditions and use 
of the financial guarantees 
provided in article 6 of the 
law of 14 June 1994) 

Besluit van 15 januari 
1993, houdende regels 
inzake de gegevens die de 
organisatoren van 
georganiseerde reizen ten 
behoeve van de reizigers 
moeten vermelden 
(Gegevensbesluit 
georganiseerde reizen) 
(Decree of 15 January 
1993 containing rules 
concerning information that 
organisers of package 
travel must notify in the 
interest of travellers) 

Poland 

Ustawa z dnia 2 lipca 2004 
r.o swobodzie działalności 
gospodarczej (Act of 2 July 
2004 on the Freedom of 
Economic Activity) 

Ustawa o usługach 
turystycznych z 29 sierpnia 
1997 r. (The Act on Tourist 
Services of 29 August 
1997) 

43 

PE 475.084 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Código Civil (Civil Code) 

Lei nº 24/96 de 31 de 
Julho (Regime legal 
aplicável à defesa dos 
consumidores) (Consumer 
Protection Act No. 24/96) 

Decreto-Lei n.º 198/93, de 
27 de Maio, revogado pelo 
Decreto-Lei nº 209/97, de 
13 de Agosto, alterado pelo 
Decreto-Lei n.º 12/99, de 
11 de Janeiro (Decree-Law 
nr 198/93, of May 27 
modified by Decree-Law 
12/99 of 11 January) 

Ordonanta nr. 107 din 30 
iulie 1999 privind 
activitatea de 
comercializare a pachetelor 
de servicii turistice 
(Government Ordinance 
no.107/1999 on package 
travel) 

Zákon 186/2006 Z.z. 
ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa 
zákon č. 281/2001 Z.z. o 
zájazdoch, podmienkach 
podnikania cestovných 
kancelárií a cestovných 
agentúr a o zmene a 
doplnení Občianskeho 
zákonníka v znení 
neskorších predpisov v 
znení zákona č. 95/2002 
Z.z. (Act No. 281/2001 on 
Package Travel) 

Zákon č.40/1964 Zb. 
Občiansky zákonník (Civil 
Code) 

Zákon 250/2007 Z.z.o 
ochrane spotrebiteľa a o 
zmene zákona Slovenskej 
národnej rady č. 372/1990 
Zb. o priestupkoch v znení 
neskorších predpisov (Act 
No. 250/2007 on 
Consumer Protection and 
about the change of the 
Act No. 372/1990 about 
transgressions) 

Obligacijski zakonik (Code 
of Obligations) 

Zakon o spodbujanju 
razvoja turizma (Promotion 
of Tourism Development 
Act) 

Zakon o varstvu 
potrošnikov (Consumer 
Protection Act) 

PE 475.084 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Spain 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 

Real  Decreto  Legislativo 
1/2007  (Legislative  Decree 
1/2007) 

Norms of the Autonomous 
Communities about Travel 
(examples) (Norms of the 
Autonomous Communities 
about Travel (examples)) 

Lag (1992:1672) om 
paketresor (Package Tours 
Act (1992:1672)) 

Package Travel, Package 
Holidays and Package Tour 
Regulations 1992 (Package 
Travel, Package Holidays 
and Package Tour 
Regulations 1992) 

Table 2: Implementation of the definition of « package », Art. 2 para 1, 1st sent. 

Member 
State 

Cyprus  

Article 

Name of the Statute 

Comment 

Art. 3 (1) - 
(2) 

Art. 2 

Τhe Package Travel, 
Holidays and Tours Law 
of 1998, L.51(I)/98 

Article 2 simply refers to the definition of the 
term “package” laid down in Article 3(1) & (2). 

Article 2 simply refers to the definition of the 
term “package” laid down in Article 3(1) & (2). 
This reference to the said definition is listed 
seventh in Art 2. 

Slovakia 

§ 2 para 1 
lit. a - c 

Act No. 281/2001 on 
Package Travel 

§ 2, section (2) - exclusions of the term 
“package 

Slovenia 

Art. 883 
para 1 

Code of Obligations 

This provision defines package as a 
culmination of accommodation, transfer and 
other services that are related to the former 
two. The provision still applies, although its 
contents are repeated in the new art. 57a par. 
1 CPA. 

Art. 33 

Promotion of Tourism 
Development Act 

45 

Provision of the same substance as in the 
Directive. The provision still applies, although 
most of its contents are duplicated in art. 57a 
of the Consumer Protection Act. The legislator 
gave no explanation as to what is the purpose 
of the numerous new CPA provisions, 
duplicating already existing provisions of the 
Obligations Code and The Promotion of 
PE 475.084 
Tourism Development Act, which continue to 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

be in force. Legally there is no need for this; 
on the contrary - it is causing ambiguity and 
confusion. It can probably be attributed to 
inconsiderate drafting of legislation. The 
application of the Consumer Protection Act 
(and the exclusion of the Obligations Code and 
Promotion of Tourism development Act) with 
regard to issues regulated repeatedly, is 
justified by the principles of lex specialis, and 
lex posterior. 

The new art. 57a par. 2 defines a "package" 
("turistični aranžma") in the same way as art. 
33 of the Promotion of Tourism Development 
Act and the Directive, the content of the 
provision is duplicated. 

This is a reference provision only – it explains 
that tourist services are regulated in specific 
laws. 

Art. 57a 
para 2 

Art. 57 

Consumer Protection Act 

PE 475.084 

46 

Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Table 3: Implementation of the definition of « organiser », Art. 2 para 2 

Member 
State 

Article 

Name of the Statute 

Comment 

Bulgaria 

No. 8 in 
conjunction 
with No. 7 
Additional 
provisions, 
Law on 
Tourism 

Law on tourism 

Instead of the concept “organizer” the 
Bulgarian Law on Tourism employs the 
concept “tour-operator” and “tour-operator 
activity”. The concept tour-operator is broader 
than organiser. It encompasses not only the 
offering and sale of “packages” but also of 
individual travel services. No. 8 Additional 
provisions, Law on Tourism defines “tour-
operator” as “a person registered under this 
law to carry out tour-operator activity”. No. 7 
Additional provisions, Law on Tourism in turn 
defines “tour-operator activity” as “the 
organizing of group or individual package 
tours or the sale of travels directly or through 
a tourist agent by contract or a voucher to the 
end-consumer” 

Cyprus 

Art. 2 

Τhe Package Travel, 
Holidays and Tours Law 
of 1998, L.51(I)/98 

The particular definition is listed third in Article 
2. The phrase “other than occasionally” is 
omitted in the said definition. 

Hungary 

§ 1 para 2 
lit. a, c, d, 
g 

Government Decree No. 
213/1996. (XII.23.) on 
Travel Organisation and 
Agency Activities 

§ 2 - § 7 regulate registration process of 
organiser. § 1 para 2 lit. g amended with 
Government decree 20/2007. (II.20.) Korm. 
rendelet. 

Poland 

Art. 3 no. 5 

The Act on Tourist 
Services of 29 August 
1997 

Reference to a businessperson (defined by the 
Act on Freedom of Economic Activity) who 
organises a ‘tourist event’. 

Art. 4 no. 1 

Act of 2 July 2004 on the 
Freedom of Economic 
Activity 

Reference to a businessperson (defined by the 
Act on Freedom of Economic Activity) who 
organises a ‘tourist event’. 

Slovakia  

§ 3 para 1 

Act No. 281/2001 on 
Package Travel 

Act No.513/1991Coll. Commercial Code as 
amended- § 2, section (2) – definition of 
“entrepreneur”Act No. 40/1964 Coll. Civil Code 
as amended - § 741a – package travel 
contract§ 7 – obligations of the organizer 

47 

PE 475.084 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Art. 883 
para 2 

Code of Obligations 

Slovenia 

Art. 34 
para 1 

Promotion of Tourism 
Development Act 

Art. 1 paras 
3 and 4 

Consumer Protection Act 

There is no definition of an organizer in the 
Code of Obligations, the Code explains only 
that the seller of a package travel that was 
arranged by an organizer whose seat is in 
another state, is deemed to be an organizer as 
well. The provision is still in force but a 
definition of organiser (corresponding to the 
Directive's) is given in art. 1 para 10 of the 
Consumer Protection Act. 

The provision defines who may be an 
organizer and seller of tourist arrangements, 
i.e. a sole trader or a juristic person. The 
provision is still in force but a definition of 
organiser (corresponding to the Directive's) is 
given in art. 1 para 10 of the Consumer 
Protection Act. 

This provision gives only a very broad, general 
definition of an undertaking for the purposes 
of the Consumer Protection Law. It does not 
define a package travel organizer. A definition 
of organiser (corresponding to the Directive's) 
is given in art. 1 para 10 of the Consumer 
Protection Act. 

PE 475.084 

48 

 
 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Table 4: Implementation of the definition of « retailer », Art. 2 para 3 

Member 
State 

Bulgaria 

Article 

Name of the Statute 

Comment 

No. 10 in 
conjunction 
with No. 9 
Additional 
provisions, 
Law on 
Tourism 

Law on tourism 

No. 10 Additional provisions Law on Tourism 
defines tourist agent as “a person registered 
under this Law to carry out tourist agent 
activity”. Tourist agent activity is in turn 
defined as “acting as intermediary (agent) 
with sales of package tours, of air, water and 
bus transportation of passengers, with the 
rendering of reservation services, visa, tourist 
guide and other additional tourist services, as 
well as insurance in connection with travels.” 

Τhe Package Travel, 
Holidays and Tours Law 
of 1998, L.51(I)/98 

The particular definition is listed 9th in Article 
2. 

Civil Code 

The Lithuanian implementing provisions use 
the term “travelling agency”. 

Law on Tourism 

The Lithuanian implementing provisions use 
the term “travelling agency”. 

Cyprus 

Art. 2 

Lithuania 

Slovakia 

Art. 6.747 
para 3 

Art. 2 para 
7 

§ 4 para 1, 
§ 3 para 2 
lit. a - e 

Act No. 281/2001 on 
Package Travel 

Definition of retailer (travel 
agency)Relationship between organizer and 
retailer § 3, section (2), (3), (4) – obligations 
of the retailer 

The Code of Obligations explains that the 
seller of a package travel that was arranged 
by an organizer whose seat is in another 
state, is deemed to be an organizer as well. 
The provision is still in force but a new 
definition of retailer (corresponding to the 
Directive's) is given in art. 1 para 10, 2nd 
sentence of the Consumer Protection Act. 

The law defines who may provide services of 
selling touristic arrangements. The provision is 
still in force but a new definition of retailer 
(corresponding to the Directive's) is given in 
art. 1 para 11 and 10, 2nd sentence of the 
Consumer Protection Act. 

The provision is still in force but a new 
definition of retailer (corresponding to the 
Directive's) is given in art. 1 para 11 and 10, 
2nd sentence Zakon o varstvu potrošnikov. 

Art. 883 
para 2 

Code of Obligations 

Slovenia 

Art. 34 
para 2 

Promotion of Tourism 
Development Act 

Art. 1 para 
10, 2nd 
sentence 
and 11 

Consumer Protection Act 

49 

PE 475.084 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                
 
Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Table 5: Implementation of the definition of « consumer », Art. 2 para 4 

Member 
State 

Article 

Name of the Statute 

Comment 

Cyprus 

Art. 2 

Τhe Package Travel, 
Holidays and Tours Law 
of 1998, L.51(I)/98 

The particular definition is listed sixth in 
Article 2. 

Latvia 

Art. 1 para 
1 section 3 

Consumer Rights 
Protection Law 

Romania 

Art. 2 no. 4 

Government Ordinance 
no.107/1999 on package 
travel 

Slovenia 

Art. 1 para 
2 

Consumer Protection Act 

On October 27th , 2005, the changes were 
made in Consumer Law Protection Law- 
excluding legal persons from the scope of 
“consumer” . So from the November 11th , 
2005 these changes came into force in Latvia. 

The new definition of the consumer is in 
accordance with the amendment brought by 
the Law no. 363/2007 regarding the incorrect 
practices of the traders in their relation with 
the consumers and the harmonisation of the 
regulations with the European legislation 
regarding the consumers protection: “any 
person of group of physical persons 
constituted in associations which buy or 
undertake to buy the package travel – main 
contractor – or any other person in which 
name the main contractor undertakes to buy 
the package travel – other beneficiaries - or 
any other person in favour of which the main 
contractor or other beneficiaries assign the 
package travel – the transferee”. 

This provision gives only a very broad, general 
definition of a consumer, it defines it as a 
natural person who is obtaining or using goods 
and services in majority for personal use or for 
use in its household. The Code of Obligations, 
however, does not give any definition of a 
consumer, it only defines the rights and 
obligations.of the “passenger”. The provision 
is still in force but the definition of a package 
travel contract is repeated in the new art. 57a 
par. 1 CPA. Legally, there was no reason for 
this. 

PE 475.084 

50 

 
Implementation of the Package Travel Directive 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Table 6: Implementation of the definition of « contract », Art. 2 para 5 

Member 
State 

Article 

Name of the Statute 

Comment 

Cyprus 

Art. 2 

Τhe Package Travel, 
Holidays and Tours Law 
of 1998, L.51(I)/98 

§ 6 

Act No. 281/2001 on 
Package Travel 

Slovakia 

§ 741a 

Civil Code 

Slovenia 

Art. 883 
para 1 

Code of Obligations 

contains 

The  particular  definition  is  listed  tenth  in 
Article  2.  Please  note  that  Article  2  of  the 
several  additional 
transposition 
definitions.  These  are 
terms 
the 
“Authorised  Officer”,  “Brochure”,  “Competent 
Authority”,  “Licensed 
Insurer”,  “Minister”, 
“Offer”,  “Premises”  and  “The  Other  Party  to 
the Contract”. 

for 

Act No. 634/1992 Coll. on Consumer 
Protection as amended - § 23a –definition of 
“consumer contract” (standard contract). 

Act No. 634/1992 Coll. on Consumer 
Protection as amended - § 23a –definition of 
“consumer contract” (standard contract). 

The package travel contract is defined in the 
first article of the package travel chapter of 
the Code of Obligations as a contract between 
a travel organizer that obliges himself to 
provide the specific services and a passenger 
that obliges himself to pay the lump sum 
price. The provision is still in force but the 
definition of a package travel contract is 
repeated in the new art. 57a par. 1 CPA. 
Legally, there was no reason for this. 

51

PE 475.084 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                
 
 
 
 
Cat. BA-01-13-453-EN-C

978-92-823-4712-6
10.2861/32570