The Tango Between Art.17(3) Brussels Ibis and Art.6(4)(b) Rome I under the Beat of Package Travel Directive

Abstract

Package travel tourists are explicitly protected as consumers under Article 6(4)(b) Rome I, but not under Article 17(3) Brussels Ibis since it does not even mention the term ‘package travel’. Such discrepancy is widened with the replacement of Directive 90/314 by Directive 2015/2302 with enlarged notion of package travel. As regards protecting package travel tourists as consumers with favorable jurisdiction and applicable law rules, this article argues that Article 17(3) Brussels Ibis is two steps behind Article 6(4)(b) Rome I. In order to close the gap, a uniform concept of package travel should be given. To this end, it is suggested that Article 17(3) Brussels Ibis should adopt the notion of package travel employed in Article 6(4)(b) Rome I. Despite this, these two provisions only cover packages containing transport, as an exception of transport contracts. Packages not including transport do not fall under the exception of transport contracts. Since all package travel contracts should be protected as consumer contracts, regardless of containing transport or not, it is more logical to delete the exception of transport contracts and create a separate provision to protect package travel contracts as consumer contracts.

Jurisdiction and choice of law rules over electronic consumer contracts: The nexus between the concluded contract and the targeting activity

“…However, the Chinese court did not examine whether a targeted activity exist, since it invoked general contract choice of law rules laid down in Article 41 Chinese Conflicts Act, rather than Article 42 on consumer choice of law rules. 119 Package travel contracts are expressly protected as consumer contracts in the EU under Article 6(4)(b) Rome I Regulation, 120 but not explicitly included in the material scope of consumer choice of law rules under Article 42 Chinese Conflicts Act. Such practice is doubtful.…”