Abstract
Package travel tourists are explicitly protected as consumers under Article 6(4)(b) Rome I, but not under Article 17(3) Brussels Ibis since it does not even mention the term ‘package travel’. Such discrepancy is widened with the replacement of Directive 90/314 by Directive 2015/2302 with enlarged notion of package travel. As regards protecting package travel tourists as consumers with favorable jurisdiction and applicable law rules, this article argues that Article 17(3) Brussels Ibis is two steps behind Article 6(4)(b) Rome I. In order to close the gap, a uniform concept of package travel should be given. To this end, it is suggested that Article 17(3) Brussels Ibis should adopt the notion of package travel employed in Article 6(4)(b) Rome I. Despite this, these two provisions only cover packages containing transport, as an exception of transport contracts. Packages not including transport do not fall under the exception of transport contracts. Since all package travel contracts should be protected as consumer contracts, regardless of containing transport or not, it is more logical to delete the exception of transport contracts and create a separate provision to protect package travel contracts as consumer contracts.
Highlights
It takes two to tango, one as a leader and another one as a follower
The relationship between the Brussels Ibis Regulation and the Rome I Regulation is like a tango couple dancing in the dance pool of private international law
In terms of consumer protection in package travel contracts, when the background music has changed from Directive 90/314 to Directive 2015/2302, it is crucial for these two Regulations to change their steps in order to keep up with the change
Summary
It takes two to tango, one as a leader and another one as a follower. In order to present a beautiful tango, the leader and the follower need to take consistent and harmonious moves under the beat of background music. A consumer in such a contract who could have been protected as a package travel tourist with favorable consumer jurisdiction rules will lose jurisdiction benefits granted by Articles 18–19 Brussels Ibis This is the case in Peter Pammer v. The incorporated jurisdiction clause in a transport contract is considered as unfair, it does not mean consumer jurisdiction rules in Articles 17–19 Brussels Ibis Regulation shall apply to determine the competent court. Pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) Brussels Ibis Regulation, the court of the place of performance of the obligation shall have jurisdiction Both the place of departure and that of arrival must be considered, as the principal places of provision of the services which are the subject of a transport contract and those places are whereas consumers in a package travel contract are entitled to invoke such protective rules. The question referred to the CJEU was: ‘Does a “voyage by freighter” constitute package travel for the purposes of Article 15(3) of Regulation No 44/2001?’20
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
