IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT In my view, the Commission’s proposals are likely to fall well short of the objective of simplification and clarification. The proposed rules are often too complex and impractical. More courage could have been shown in both package travel law and passenger rights and the existing concepts could have been fundamentally rethought instead of just making partial additions, codifying CJEU case law and creating further bureaucracy. Experience shows that a higher density of regulation does not necessarily lead to greater clarity. Each additional sentence can lead to further issues of interpretation. Some problems with the current legal situation are completely ignored by the proposals. Inconsistencies, such as imposing obligations on the contracting carrier at one time and on the operating carrier at another, make it more difficult for those affected to enforce their rights. The fact that the sustainability repeatedly emphasised in the justification for the proposals is hardly reflected in the proposed regulations has also already been criticised in the scholarship.94 It is to be hoped that significant changes will be made in the further legislative process. Some proposals also appear to be completely unnecessary. After reading the proposals - and perhaps taking into account the comments in this article - everyone should decide for themselves what they consider to be a ‘highlight’ and what they consider to be a low point. 94 Tonner, Das Passenger Mobility Package der EU-Kommission im Kontext des europäischen Verbraucherrechts: Wo bleibt die Nachhaltigkeit? VuR 2024, 283. 21 THE NEW PASSENGER MOBILITY PACKAGE – HIGHLIGHTS AND LOW POINTS
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==