News
BackLast week the European Parliament voted on the Package Travel and Assisted Travel Arrangements Directive. Due to the fact that the booking behaviour of consumers had significantly changed (keyword: online travel market) over the last years, it was high time to revise the 1990 EU law on package travel. The new law shall in particular take these changes into account. However, instead of using the opportunity to undertake some long overdue corrections, the proposal by the European Commission contained a fair amount of causes for conflict. Unfortunately, the European Parliament has now also missed the opportunity to noticeably improve consumer protection.
The Directive already leaves a lot to be desired with regard to definition and scope. The European Parliament did not succeed in providing for the missing clear demarcation of “package travel” and “linked travel arrangements” (previously assisted travel arrangements). Apart from that, the vote in the plenum restricted the scope to a certain degree.
National minimum standards at risk
From the point of view of the AK, it is particularly questionable why the European Parliament fails to recognize the problems of an undifferentiated full harmonisation. Ignoring these might result in a serious deterioration of national consumer protection. This applies in particular also to Austria: here for example, full harmonisation would put the no-fault guarantee at risk.
Lack of cancellation rights
The European Parliament also failed to improve the cancellation rights for consumers. Due to the fact that the Package Travel Directive has been excluded from the Consumer Rights Directive, there is a lack of cancellation options in EU law, if a tour is booked outside a company’s business premises. This means that exactly those areas, where most complaints by consumers can be found, are exempt from the scope of the Directive – such as the sale of travel arrangements during promotional events and promotional tours.
Travel brochures cannot be relied upon
In the opinion of the AK it is also problematic that the European Parliament did not close the gap in the Commission proposal with regard to binding prices in brochures. In failing to do so it remains the fact that tour operators are free to decide when they will provide consumers with detailed information and prices. If, for example a price “from …” is stated, it can be significantly different from the price consumers have to pay when booking at the travel agent. This affects a large number of consumers, who still use the brochure as a basis for making their decision.
Less protection whilst complexity and confusion remain the same is the disappointing conclusion.
Further information:
AK Position Paper
Adopted legislative text
National minimum standards at risk
From the point of view of the AK, it is particularly questionable why the European Parliament fails to recognize the problems of an undifferentiated full harmonisation. Ignoring these might result in a serious deterioration of national consumer protection. This applies in particular also to Austria: here for example, full harmonisation would put the no-fault guarantee at risk.
Lack of cancellation rights
The European Parliament also failed to improve the cancellation rights for consumers. Due to the fact that the Package Travel Directive has been excluded from the Consumer Rights Directive, there is a lack of cancellation options in EU law, if a tour is booked outside a company’s business premises. This means that exactly those areas, where most complaints by consumers can be found, are exempt from the scope of the Directive – such as the sale of travel arrangements during promotional events and promotional tours.
Travel brochures cannot be relied upon
In the opinion of the AK it is also problematic that the European Parliament did not close the gap in the Commission proposal with regard to binding prices in brochures. In failing to do so it remains the fact that tour operators are free to decide when they will provide consumers with detailed information and prices. If, for example a price “from …” is stated, it can be significantly different from the price consumers have to pay when booking at the travel agent. This affects a large number of consumers, who still use the brochure as a basis for making their decision.
Less protection whilst complexity and confusion remain the same is the disappointing conclusion.
Further information:
AK Position Paper
Adopted legislative text