exclude such a remedy in their contractual terms.48 Secondly, the law of the respective third country will often have to be applied to service providers in third countries, and the EU has no competence to impose such regulations on these countries. Thirdly, the seven-day period seems unrealistic.49 If it is not adhered to voluntarily, there is no possibility for the organiser to enforce a refund within this short period. Finally, it is not entirely clear why the second paragraph is limited to the reimbursement of what has been paid and does not (like the first paragraph) also include other rights of recourse. 1.7. Conclusions While the Commission Proposal undeniably contains some positive ideas it cannot be regarded a great achievement. Extensive and cumbersome wording undermines the objectives of clarification and simplification. Where inadequacies have been recognised - particularly in the inclusion of new technologies - there is a lack of courage to fundamentally rethink previous concepts, even though they have not proven themselves in practice. This applies in particular to ‘click through bookings’ and ‘linked travel arrangements’. Cosmetic adjustments do not eliminate the problems and in some cases lead to even more complex definitions and difficulties in interpretation. With regard to insolvency insurance, the proposals are also limited to a higher level of regulation without addressing fundamental problems such as the insolvency protection of airline tickets.50 Although the proposed rules on redress are positive in principle, they seem impractical in detail. It is therefore not surprising that the EU Council in their statement51 suggested significant amendments to the Commission Proposal like (at least as an option) the abolition of the category of linked travel arrangements, deletion of the proposed rule on payments, and the inclusion of the organiser’s right to refund in the mandatory provisions. The EU Parliament seems to be tending in the opposite direction again, which is why the outcome of the trialogue52 remains to be seen. 48 See Grant in Torres ea (Editors), Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive [2020], Article 22 Right of Redress (474). 49 So also Bergmann, Vorschlag der Kommission zur Ändrung der Reise-RL – Regress (Art. 22 Abs. 2), RRa 2024, 183. 50 See the recent insolvency of Air Belgium where passengers are unlikely to get refunds: https://www. brusselstimes.com/1558049/passengers-unlikely-to-get-refunds-for-air-belgium-flights. 51 Presidency text proposal 2023/0435(COD). 52 Article 294 TFEU. 13 THE NEW PASSENGER MOBILITY PACKAGE – HIGHLIGHTS AND LOW POINTS
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==