amendment to the wording of Article 161.1 of the TRLGDCU, which generally changes the liability regime, making it joint and several. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight, I have to say that this latest wording of Article 161.1 seems to be in line with the provisions of Article 11 of the 1995 LVC, as it also seems to be more in line with Article 13 of Directive 2015/2302. In view of this, we must ask ourselves what will happen from now on? The current provision, like its predecessors, suffers from certain technical shortcomings and its application may give rise to doubts as to its interpretation, bearing in mind that, although joint liability is established, it is possible to bring an action against each of the organisers and the retailer. The jurist is an attentive observer of reality and must apply the law using the hermeneutic criteria laid down in Article 3 of our Civil Code. One of these is the historical criterion, which is missing here because, as I have already mentioned, it does not appear in the original bill or in the text introducing the amendments. It is present in the final bill, without the motivation or final intention of the legislator appearing in it or in the regulation subsequently adopted, since, as I said, it cannot be found either in the MS of the law or in its parliamentary processing. Furthermore, the interpretation is complicated by the fact that it is included in a "consumer protection" regulation, which is not the ideal instrument for balancing the interests of the weakest entrepreneur: in this case, the retailer against the organiser. Consequently, the lack of adequate wording of article 161.1 of the TRLGDCU, which, on the one hand, indicates that liability is limited to the scope of each operator's own management and, on the other hand, makes it possible to bring an action for non-conformity and breach of contract against both operators (organiser and retailer), could put us back at square one, where we were in 1995 with the repealed LVC. This being the case, I am afraid that what was achieved after the 2007 reform, i.e. the long-awaited legal certainty that entrepreneurs and consumers need, may have been destroyed by this latest and perhaps more precise regulation, but only if it had been accompanied by due justification and a more refined wording of the provision in question.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==