W publikacji pt. Aktualne tendencje w prawie konsumenckim (pod red. R. Stefanickiego, Wrocław 2010) ukazał się artykuł prof. Piotra Machnikowskiego (Uniwersytet Wrocławski) pt. Ocena funkcjonowania i kierunki zmian prawa UE w zakresie ochrony konsumentów na przykładzie dyrektywy o podróżach.
W artykule tym autor krytycznie odniósł się do obecnego brzmienia dyrektywy, jak i zaproponował pewne zmiany. W ocenie prof. P. Machnikowskiego:
(…) dyrektywa 90/314 stoi na niskim poziomie pod względem staranności legislacyjnej. Można jej zarzucić pogwałcenie wielu reguł poprawnego stanowienia prawa. Ma wadliwą strukturę, niejasny język, zawiera sprzeczności i pozostawia luki.
Z drugiej strony określa on dyrektywę jako przykład „skutecznej legislacji„, jej wprowadzenie przyczyniło się do podniesienia ochrony konsumentów.
Jednocześnie zaproponował on następujące brzmienie przepisów dyrektywy:
Article 1: Revision of price
(1) Revision of price in a package travel contract requires an express contractual term which must also state precisely how the revised price is to be calculated. The reasons for revision must be limited to variations in:
(a) transportation costs, including the cost of fuel;
(b) dues, taxes or fees chargeable for certain services, such as landing taxes or embarkation or disembarkation fees at ports and airports; or
(c) the exchange rates applied to this package.
The price may be increased only until the twenty-first day before departure.
(2) The consumer may
(a) terminate the contract; or
(b) accept the revised price.
(3) If the consumer does not notify the organizer of its decision without undue delay, an appropriate price revision is considered as accepted.
Article 2: Modifications of contract
(1) If, before departure, it becomes impossible or excessively burdensome for the organizer to perform the contract without significant modifications, the organizer must immediately notify this to the consumer, indicating proposed modifications.
The consumer may
(a) terminate the contract and claim damages for non-performance; or
(b) accept the proposed modifications.
(2) If the consumer does not notify the organizer of its decision without undue delay, proposed appropriate modifications are considered as accepted.
Art. 3: Damages
(1) The consumer is entitled to damages for economic and non-economic loss caused by non-performance of the obligation, unless such non-performance is excused.
(2) Non-performance is excused if it is due to circumstances beyond the control of the organizer and of any person engaged by the organizer for performing this obligation, provided that the consequences of those circumstances could not have been avoided even if all due care had been exercised.
(3) Damages are reduced or excluded to the extent that the consumer wilfully or negligently contributed to the effects of the non-performance or could have reduced the loss by taking reasonable steps.
Art. 4: Duty to inform about non-performance
Any non-performance which the consumer perceives on the spot must be communicated at the earliest opportunity to the supplier of the services concerned or to the organizer.
Article 5: The organizer’s right of termination
(1) The organizer may terminate the package travel contract without incurring liability if the number of persons enrolled is less than the required minimum number set out in the contract.
(2) The termination of the contract releases both parties from their obligations. Each party is obliged to return to the other what has been performed under the contract.
Article 6: Alternative arrangements in case of partial non-performance
(1) After departure, if non-performance of a significant proportion of the obligations of the organizer has occurred, or if the organizer realises that such non-performance will occur, the organizer must make suitable alternative arrangements for the continuation of the package which are to be provided at no extra costs. Where appropriate, the organizer must compensate the consumer for the difference in value between the services owed and those supplied. The consumer may reject the alternative arrangements for good reasons.
(2) If alternative arrangements are impossible, or are rejected for good reasons, the organizer must, where appropriate, provide the consumer with an equivalent return transport to the place of departure, or to another return point agreed with the consumer, at no extra cost. This does not affect the consumer’s right to claim damages.
Art. 7: Duty of assistance
If it becomes apparent that the package travel contract will not be performed properly, the organizer must provide prompt assistance to a consumer in difficulty unless the non-performance is attributable to the consumer.
Przepisy te są wzorowane na regułach modelowych Acquis Principles.
dr Piotr Cybula