Four stakeholder representatives were invited at the hearing and the discussions focused on the below key aspects of the Commission's proposal. BEUC, ECTAA and DAV welcomed the increase in traveller's protection by bringing within the scope of the newly proposed Directive different forms of on-line and tailor-made packages and assisted travel arrangements. However, BEUC and DAV strongly warned that the subdivision between ‘package’, on the one hand, and ‘assisted travel arrangements’, on the other hand, with only very limited rights stemming from the second category, would be difficult for consumers to distinguish in practice, and easy to manipulate for businesses (BEUC). ECTAA would not oppose to extending the definition of ‘package’ even further, to create a level playing field for the various businesses involved. In contrast, ETTSA pleaded for narrowing down the definition of ‘package’ (and hence the scope of the Directive) and removing the provisions on ‘assisted travel arrangements’. The Commission commented that the organiser is in any case under the obligation to clarify what it is offering to the consumer: a package or an assisted travel arrangement.
BEUC was calling for a right of withdrawal for distance (online) and doorstep selling as provided in the Consumer Rights Directive (CRD), whereas ECTAA was asking for reimbursement to be due only “without undue delay”, again as in the CRD, and not “within 14 days” as in the Commission proposal. Furthermore, according to ECTAA, cancellation by the consumer in case of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances should be based on official travel advice, and repatriation costs should be borne by both parties to the contract. As regards insolvency protection, ETTSA argued in favour of making insolvency protection levels subject to ‘the real risk’ and hence to release the travel agents from this obligation. Both ECTAA and ETTSA insisted on improving access to national insolvency protection schemes and mutual recognition of such schemes, and moreover on addressing the problem of airline insolvency. BEUC called for a clarification of the substance of the obligation of insolvency protection. ECTAA supports the Commission’s proposal to make solely the organiser liable for the performance of the contract. Conversely, for BEUC, only joint liability between the organiser and the travel agent is acceptable, to avoid lowering the level of consumer protection in almost half of the Member States. While ECTAA is in favour of a targeted maximum harmonisation approach, BEUC calls for minimum harmonisation, or at most a mix of both approaches, to avoid that better national provisions would be affected. It moreover warns that some provisions of the proposal constitute a step back from the current Directive.
Finally, all speakers urged Parliament not to rush this proposal through the legislative process, but to take time to consider the various options carefully.
