IFTTA - International Travel and Tourism News: Consumers

Showing posts with label Consumers. Show all posts

Monday, January 20, 2014

Thursday, January 03, 2013

Wednesday, December 07, 2011

Most recent postings on IFTTA News

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

The July/August 2010 issue of ISO Focus+, the magazine of the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), features some of the key standards that facilitate travel covering issues such as safety and security of travellers (machine readable passports, visas and travel documents , biometrics); travel and tourism signboards ; the proposed new ISO standard for adventure tourism (activity conducted by the ISO Technical Committee ISO/TC228Tourism and Related Services ),other areas such as quality management (ISO 9001:2008 certification), ISO standards regarding energy and water, food and beverages, air filtration and HVAC systems, furniture, cosmetics and their implementation in the accommodation sector . But, there are also two other ISO standards in relation with the protection of consumers which are mentioned in this ISO Focus+ Issue (particularly with the reference to the consequences of the Icelandic volcano crisis and future similar crisis). These are respectively the ISO 31000 : 2009 Risk Management Standard and the ISO 26000: 2010 Guidance on Social Responsibility Standard ( including the consumer affairs).

Information passed on to IFTTA by Patrice Tedjini, UNWTO.

Find further details here>>.

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

European Court of Justice: Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts allows stricter consumer protection rules by member states

The Tribunal Supremo (Spanish Supreme Court) asked the Court of Justice, in essence, whether the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts precludes a Member State from providing in its legal system, for the benefit of consumers, for an assessment as to the unfairness of contractual terms which relate to the definition of the main subject-matter of the contract or to the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods to be supplied in exchange, on the other hand, even in the case where those terms are drafted in plain, intelligible language.

In judgement of June 3, 2010 in Case C-484/08 (Caja de Ahorros v. Ausbanc), ECJ held that the Directive carried out only a partial and minimum harmonisation of national legislation concerning unfair terms, while recognising that Member States have the option of affording consumers a higher level of protection than that for which the Directive provides. Member States therefore may retain or adopt, throughout the area covered by the Directive, rules which are stricter than those provided for by the Directive. Consequently, the Directive does not preclude national legislation which authorises judicial review as to the unfairness of contractual terms which relate to the definition of the main subject-matter of the contract or to the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods to be supplied in exchange, on the other hand, even in the case where those terms are drafted in plain, intelligible language.

Source: ECJ press release No 52/10 of June 3, 2010

Tuesday, May 04, 2010

European Union: Consumer Centres act together to help ash crisis passengers

On 4 May 2010, the Network of European Consumer Centres (ECC-Net), supported by the European Commission and operating in all EU Member States (as well as Iceland and Norway), published a practical complaint package, which is designed to help consumers affected by recent flight disruptions to exercise their consumer rights guaranteed under EU laws. The package includes a standard complaint letter, contact details of all airlines and other practical advice.

Source: Europa Press Releases RAPID, Reference: IP/10/492, Date: 04/05/2010

Thursday, April 29, 2010

German Supreme Court decides on cross-ticketing

German Supreme Court (BGH) in today's judgment Xa ZR 5/09 decided that airlines must not declare a ticket void if the flight coupons are not used in their correct order. Such provisions are widely used in general conditions of contract of several airlines to prevent passengers from booking flight segments which they actually don't want to use in order to benefit from a lower price.

In the particular case the German Federal Consumer Protection Association (Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen) had sued British Airways and Lufthansa to cease and desist from using such provisions.

BGH acknowledged a legitimate interest of the airlines to avoid evasions of their tariff systems; this purpose, however, could also be achieved by milder means as for instance a surcharge for not having used a coupon for a flight segment. To completely ban the passenger from further contractual services would be disproportionate and against the principle of good faith as the provisions at stake made no distinction on whether the passenger deliberately booked more segments than required or left coupons unused for justified reasons.

Source: BGH press release 91/2010; full text available in German here>>.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

UK: consultation on creating new consumer right

Altough Consumers are protected from traders' misrepresentations and unfair dealing by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, which implement EU law, they cannot take direct action under these Regulations. The Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission are therefore reviewing whether or not consumers should be able to take direct action against retailers who treat them unfairly. It has asked consumers and businesses if the action would be too severe.

Source: out-law.com; find article here>>.

Friday, March 12, 2010

European Union: List on responses to public consultation on the PTD revision

European commission has published a list on responses to the public consultation on the PTD revision. The list which provides links to the respective responses covers both the responses to the questionnaire in the IPM-tool (online questionnaire) and e-mail contributions and is available here>>.

Friday, January 29, 2010

German BGH: Airline bonus points

Germany Highest Court (BGH) ruled yesterday about the forfeiture of Airline bonus points (BGH 28.01.2010, Xa ZR 37/09):

Plaintiff was a participant of the flight awards program of the defendant airline. Under this program, travelers were able to collect a number of bonus points dependent on the route booked that could be redeemed within five years after the flight for bonus tickets. In the conditions of the program (CoP), the defendant retained the right to terminate the program at any time. In September 2007 defendant announced the ending of the rewards program by 31 October 2007 and admitted to the participants the option to transfer the points collected to another airline’s program. At the same time defendant terminated plaintiff’s participation contract and informed the plaintiff that he may book flights on the bases of the current CoP until 30 April 2008 only and which shall take place until 31 October 2008.

Plaintiff considered that defendant’s CoP shall be null and void in this regard and he claimed that he could still redeem the bonus points within five years after the flight date.

Both, the district court and the court of appeal dismissed the action and considered the CoP of the defendant still to be in force and binding.

The BGH did not follow this point of view. Defendant may terminate the flight rewards program at any time, however, in the case at hand the CoP providing a right to decrease the period of the initial validity of the bonus points of up to one tenth can not be justified.

This may cause difficulties for the defendant when booking appropriate bonus flights only six months in advance. Bonus points are a not a voluntary service provided by the defendant, since the bonus points are a kind of discount agreed which is applicable for future flights. The defendant is obliged to grant bonus points for flights that have taken place after termination the program, unless they have been booked prior to its termination on the basis of the CoP.

The offered transfer to another airline’s awards program is not an alternative, because it is not equivalent in every respect.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Finland: New logo for package travel

The Finnish Consumer Agency will launch a logo to be used on package travel documents and advertisements. The logo was designed closely with the travel industry in Finland and we hope it will be used on most of the package travels sold in Finland starting from this year. The logo should make it easier for traveler to know which packages are sold as package travels and which are not.

The logo will be revealed at the Travel fare 2010 which will start on the 21^st of January. With the logo the Consumer Agency will also promote the new tour organizer registry which you will find at www.valmismatka.fi (=package travel). The site will also open on the 21^st. Trade mark registration is pending for the logo.

Reported to IFTTA by Petteri Lehtonen

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

Prohibited items lists EU+USA

USA

1a.

You can find the list of prohibited items published by the TSA which applies to flights originating within the USA (3/2009):

List USA

1b.

The TSA also provides rules for liquids, the so called '3-1-1 for Carry-Ons':

3-1-1 Carry-On s

2a.

Code word: "Hermeticism"

In the EU originally Regulation 2320/2002/EC on common rules in the field of civil aviation security as amended by Regulation 849/2004/EC (subject: All EU airports, service providers, catering, cleaning and cargo parties as well as all airlines both EU and foreign departing or transiting any EUairport) provided a secret (!!!) list of prohibited items, which the ECJ decided in Case (GC) C-345/06 (Heinrich) has to be published due to Regulation 1049/2001/EC regarding public access.
A new Regulation as of 11.03.2008 repealing the former one has been issued but is not applicable yet: Regulation 300/2009/EC
A new list of prohibited items based on Art 4 Para 2 Regulation 2320/2002/EC has been published by Regulation 820/2008/EC as amended by Regulation 483/2009/EC: Current and consolidated version of Regulation 820/2008/EC as of 30.06.2009

2b.

The well known rules regarding liquids as of 2006 can be found here:

Security rules

2c.

Initial plans to set legal limits at European level to the size of carry-on cabin baggage in airplanes have been withdrawn; likewise plans of the Commission to an end of the ban of liquids.

Monday, January 04, 2010

New Commission, Hearings, etc

The full 'Timetable for the Hearings of the Commissioners designate', which will start on January 11th and last until 19th can be found here:

Timetable EP

The new Commission 'Barroso II' and the respective responsibilities can be found here (in all official languages):

New Team

Further information about the hearings can be found here:

Hearings

once again:

The Consumer Contract and Marketing Law SANCO B.2 moves to DG JLS from DG Health and Consumers (SANCO) as part of the Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship portfolio

Nevertheless the new responsible commissioner Viviane Reding will not be heard by the IMCO but only by LIBE, JURI and FEMM committees

Information about the several committees, it's schedules and documents can be found here:

EP Committees

Monday, November 30, 2009

Austrian Supreme Court clarifies information duties in regard to entry requirements

Mr. F had booked a package tour to Morocco for himself, his wife and his eight year old son. At the time of booking he did not ask for entry requirements, only leafed through the pages of the tour organiser's brochure without looking for the respective information and didn't take the brochure along. The booking confirmation issued by the travel agent included the advice that information about entry requirements was avialable in the tour organizers brochure, at the website of the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Aiffairs at<www.reiseinformation.at> or at the embassy of the respective country.

At home he looked up the website of the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Aiffairs and found the information that to enter into Morocco for tourist purposes and a period not exceeding three month, Austrian citizens didn't need visa but were required a passport valid throughout their stay. In a guidebook he read that children either needed their own passport or had to be registered in a parent's passport.

At the airport he was told that his son would need his own passport and registration in the mother's passport (without foto) was not sufficient. F. decided to book a 'last minute' package tour to Mallorca. To show goodwill the tour organiser refunded 50 % of the travel price without accepting responsibility.

Back home F. assigned his claim to Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour which filed a law suit against the tour organiser.

Both first instance and second instance (Commercial Court Vienna) dismissed the claim: it was common knowledge that travelling to another country usually requires a passport. From the website of the Ministry of Foreign Aiffairs F. had learned about the requirements but ignored same. He therefore was responsible for contributory neglicence of 50 %. As the tour organiser had refunded 50 % there was no further claim.

Upon appeal of the Federal Chamber of Labour, Austrian Supreme Court held that tour organiser and travel agent had failed to fulfill their information duties: The advice given at the booking confimation was insufficient as the brochure was not handed out and the request to look at a certain website of the Ministry of Foreign Aiffairs or ask an embassy would impose a responsibility on the consumer which information duties of the tour organiser and the travel agent are aimed to avoid. There was no contributory negligence if F. had misunderstood the information given at the website of the Ministry of Foreign Aiffairs. Judgement was therefore given in favour of the claimant.

Supreme Court Judgement 6 Ob 142/09i of Sep.18, 2009 available in German here>>.

Friday, November 27, 2009

Compensation in the Event of Airline Bankruptcy

Motion for a Resolution by European Parliament

Mathieu Grosch, Artur Zasada on behalf of the PPE Group

Saïd El Khadraoui on behalf of the S&D Group

Dirk Sterckx on behalf of the ALDE Group

Michael Cramer, Frieda Brepoels on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

B7-0153/2009

European Parliament resolution on passenger compensation in the event of airline bankruptcy

The European Parliament, – having regard to the oral question of 15 October 2009 to the Commission on passenger

compensation in the event of airline bankruptcy (O-0089/09 – B7-0210/2009),

– having regard to Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours,

– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents,

– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators,

– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91,

– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community,

– having regard to Rule 115(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas Council Directive 90/314/EEC regulates aspects of the package holiday business and provides for appropriate compensation and repatriation of consumers in the event of the bankruptcy of package holiday firms,

B. whereasRegulation(EC)No2027/97establishesthenatureofaircarriers'liabilityinthe event of accidents and compensation arrangements for passengers,

C. whereasRegulation(EC)No785/2004laysdowntheinsurancerequirementsaircarriers and aircraft operators must meet,

D. whereas Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 provides for compensation for and assistance to passengers who are denied boarding or whose flights are subject to cancellation or long delay,

E. whereasRegulation(EC)No1008/2008establishesstringentfinancialrulesforaircraft operators,

PE428.771v01-00 2/3 RE\796786EN.doc

F. whereastherehasbeensubstantialgrowthinthelastdecadeinthenumberofrelatively small low-cost carriers flying to recognised holiday destinations and the number of passengers they carry,

G. whereas there have been 77 bankruptcies in the aviation sector in the last nine years, resulting in some instances in many thousands of passengers being stranded at their destinations and unable to use the return portion of their flight ticket,

1. Notes that the Commission has undertaken wide-ranging consultation of stakeholders on the question of airline bankruptcy;

2. Recalls that the Commission undertook a major study of the difficulties surrounding airline bankruptcy and its impact on passengers and forwarded its findings to Parliament in February 2009;

3. Notes the findings of that study and the range of options which it examines;

4. Recalls in this regard that there are a number of options which the Commission could pursue to strengthen the position of passengers of bankrupt airlines, including compulsory insurance for airlines, a voluntary insurance arrangement for passengers which airlines would be required to propose, and the establishment of a guarantee fund;

5. Calls on the Commission to examine the possibility of a legislative proposal and submit it, if it considers it appropriate, by 1 July 2010 which has as its specific objective the provision of compensation for passengers of airlines which go bankrupt and establishes financial and administrative arrangements, including the principle of mutual responsibility for passengers of all airlines flying in the same direction with available seats, which would ensure repatriation for passengers who are stranded at non-home airports in the event of airline bankruptcy; asks the Commission to propose, when reviewing Travel Package Directive 90/314/EC, an extension for repatriation or rerouting for the passengers concerned;

6. Calls on the Commission to consider the possibility of extending such measures to airlines which have ceased operations and caused passengers similar inconvenience to that caused by airlines which go into bankruptcy;

7. Calls on the Commission to investigate the quick release of impounded aircraft by national regulatory bodies so that those aircraft can be used to bring stranded people home;

8. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the parliaments and governments of the Member States.

New Commissioners / Speech Kuneva

Meglena Kuneva, the leaving commissioner for Consumer Policy held a press conference regarding the "Revision of the Package Travel Directive" (see below)

Along the way: The new designated commissioner for Consumer Policy is John Dalli (MT) and for Transport (and as VicePresident) Siim Kallas (EE)

Press conference speaking points

Brussels, 26 November 2009

SPEECH/09/559

Ladies and gentleman,

It is my great pleasure today to announce that we intend to review the current EU rules on package travel to give millions of consumers better protection if their holiday goes wrong.

Why do we feel that the current rules need a makeover?

First of all, our current EU law on package travel - the Package Travel Directive - was written almost 20 years ago, in 1990.

Back in those days, millions of European holidaymakers picked their package holiday from a glossy brochure and booked at a travel agent on the local high street.

The Package Travel insisted on:

- clear information in brochures,

- gave people the right to assistance if they had difficulties on the spot,

- gave them protection for substandard services,

- And it put in place insolvency protection if the tour operator or airline went bust.

But the 1990 Package Travel Directive is no longer suited for today’s travel market.

Increasingly large volumes of bookings are made by consumers putting together their own packages, often online.

Today, 56% of EU citizens organise their holidays themselves, so the number of those opting for a traditional pre-arranged package has fallen dramatically.

Just to give you one example, in 1997, 98 % of passengers travelling from the UK on leisure flights were protected by the Directive, now less than 50% are protected.

Fewer and fewer people are getting the holiday protection they deserve. That is NOT good enough. There are 3 main areas I want to focus on in this review:

1. The first, is the central issue of the Scope of the Directive.

Simply put, which of new kinds of package holidays should be covered by EU protection?

Most pressingly, we need to look at adapting the rules to take account of the "next generation" of "dynamic packages". This is where consumers make up their own package choosing two or more services, for example a flight and a hotel, either from one supplier – like Expedia or Opodo. Or from different suppliers that are commercially linked.

In the past 2 years, almost 1 in 4 EU citizens have booked these new "dynamic packages." In some countries, like Sweden and Ireland, the figure is as high as 40%!

My starting point is that we should look to extend the protection in the current directive as far as possible to cover all the new kinds of ‘dynamic packages.’ That way, we can provide more legal certainty for businesses and tough protection for consumers.

Of course we are looking forward to getting detailed feedback from industry and all stakeholders before taking final decisions on this issue.

Package Travel Label

Speaking of legal certainty, I want to draw your attention particularly, to the new ‘Travel Protection Label’ which we are considering introducing. The idea is to have a logo which makes it absolutely clear for consumers and businesses which holidays are covered by this Package Holiday Protection. I hope that this initiative will gain widespread support during the consultation.

2. Legal Responsibility

The second big issue we need to get right in this consultation is the issue of legal responsibility.

Simply put, who is responsible for what when things go wrong? Is it the carrier, is it the travel agent, is it the tour operator?

Today the old distinctions between carriers, tour operators and travel agents are often blurred. It is often not all that clear who is actually responsible for making sure that everything that is the holiday contract which the consumer signs has been properly carried out.

We urgently need to clarify these legal responsibilities.

3. Insolvency Finally, I want to come to the critical issue of protection for consumers in the

case of insolvency – in particular, what do when airlines go bust.

I know that many of you, like me, will have watched with great concern the TV pictures, as Sky Europe, XL, Future, Zoom and other airlines went bankrupt in recent months and years.

Thousands of airline passengers were stranded in airports across Europe, with worthless tickets, unable to get home. Like me, I am sure many of you watched with dismay and thought, how can this be legal? How can this be right?

Bankruptcy has become an increasing concern for European consumers. The rise of airline insolvencies has grown substantially. Between November 2005 and September 2008 alone, 29 airlines went bust.

In far too many cases European consumers found themselves "left out in the cold" unprotected and with no way of getting home.

Now is the right time to the ask the tough questions about the need to extend basic protection against airline bankruptcy to consumers across the board, including to stand alone airline tickets.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I Iook forward with great interest to getting feedback from industry, consumer organisations and the public on this consultation.

Armed with that feedback, I am confident we can get the right solutions and deliver: more low cost holidays; more competition; and more value for money and choice for consumers.

Thank you, now I am happy to take any questions you might have.

Friday, November 06, 2009

Florida: Injunction Sought Against Timeshare Resale Companies

Attorney General Bill McCollum on Nov. 2nd announced that his office has filed a lawsuit and has requested an emergency injunction against two related South Florida timeshare resale marketing companies. Universal Marketing Solutions, Creative Vacation Solutions, and owner/manager Jennifer Kirk allegedly collected over $4 million in marketing fees on a monthly basis, but rarely if ever marketed, advertised, or facilitated sales for the timeshare owners who had contracts with the companies. The injunction requests the companies’ cease doing any timeshare business while the lawsuit is pending.

In a statement released Nov. 3rd, the American Resort Development Association (ARDA) welcomed the move to seek an emergency injunction: Although there were many reputable companies that provided resale services, the largely unregulated secondary market also included some that used unscrupulous tactics to take advantage of owners who may wish to sell their timeshares.

Sources: Attorney General Bill McCollum News Release, ARDA press release.

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Austrian Supreme Court: compensation for loss of holiday enjoyment does not depend on certain percentage of price reduction granted for malperformance

Contrary to settled jurisdiction of Commercial Court Vienna, Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) in a recently published decision held that compensation for loss of holiday enjoyment would not depend on a certain percentage of price reduction granted for malperformance. Commercial Court Vienna had usually only granted compensation for loss of holiday enjoyment in cases were malperformance of the package tour contract entitled to a price reduction of at least 50 percent. In two previous decisions Supreme Court had not referred to a certain percentage of price reduction but argued that compensation for loss of holiday enjoyment could only be granted if a (not to low) treshold of relevant malperfomance was exceeded.

The new decision now emphasizes the different purposes of compensation for loss of holiday enjoyment on the one hand and price reduction for malperformance on the other hand and favours a position that compensation for loss of holiday enjoyment was only excluded in bagatelle cases. A treshold of entitlement to 50 percent price reduction would limit compensation for loss of holiday enjoyment to cases of massive annoyance which would not be in line with art. 5 of the European Package Travel Directive.

Full text of OGH decision 6 Ob 231/08a of Sep. 18, 2009 available in German here>>.

IFTTA - International Travel and Tourism News