(TRLGDCU) and, in particular, in Article 162, the liability regime. In my opinion, and as we shall see, this recasting went beyond the mandate received, since it transformed the liability regime contained in the repealed Article 11 of the LVC. Once the DVC had been replaced by the DVC&SVV, it became necessary to transpose it into domestic law, which was done by Royal Decree Law 23/2018 of 21 December on the transposition of directives on trademarks, rail transport and package travel and related travel services, which to that end reforms the TRLGDCU on package travel, with liability now regulated in Article 161, but maintaining the thesis of its predecessor, Article 162. Finally, Law 4/2022 of 25 February on the Protection of Consumers and Users in Situations of Social and Economic Vulnerability once again modifies the liability regime previously provided for in Article 161 of the TRLGDCU, which leads me to question the reasons for these changes and their justification. IV. The discrepancy in the interpretation of article 11 of the LVC One of the major problems of legal certainty that we have suffered in this country, especially during the period before and after the adoption of the LVC, has been the determination of the division of liability between the agencies that have organised and marketed the package travel vis-à-vis the consumer, as the organisation contained in the LVC has not allowed either the doctrine or the case law to take a unanimous position. The reason for this was the inadequate wording of Article 11 of the now repealed LVC. Indeed, the repealed provision stated that "[t]he organisers and retailers of package travel shall be liable to the consumer, according to the obligations that correspond to them by their respective scope of management of the package, for the proper fulfilment of the obligations arising from the contract, regardless of whether these are to be performed by themselves or by other service providers (...)". But it also went on to say that "[t]he liability shall be joint and several when different organisers or retailers concur jointly in the contract, whatever their type and the relations existing between them". This ambiguous wording led the doctrine and the courts to wonder what kind of liability was actually contained in the rule. Was it joint and several, i.e. would each party be liable exclusively for its own area of management, or was it joint and several, so that both parties,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==