The court makes the same assessment as the Administrative Court of Appeal. (The following reasoning is thus the reasoning of the Administrative Court of Appeal).
The court firstly discusses the preparatory work to the Act on Package Tours and finds, inter alia, that the combination of separate arrangements should appear as a unit, in the way that it is natural to hold the organizer responsible for the combination's parts and for the whole, in order for the combination of separate arrangements to be considered as a package under the Act on Package Tours. A further requisite for the Act on Package Tours to be applicable is that the arrangements are seen as a unit because of the work and planning put into it by the organizer.
The traveller may in part decide over the separate arrangements him/herself. This entails that the level of planning and organizing from the plaintiff is lower than otherwise. The court however states that the plaintiff has chosen the variety of accommodation and ferry transportation choices available to the traveller, and thus, has put some work when making these choices.
In the plaintiff's catalogue, the customer is encouraged to book the ferry transportation through the company. The court finds that the ferry trips appear to have been selected with the intention that they should be suitable to combine with the accommodation provided by the plaintiff. Hence, the transportation services and the accommodation services appear as a unit.
In terms of the ferry transportation, the plaintiff is however not a party to the contract with the traveller.
Considering the above, the court finds that it is uncertain whether or not the requirements of an arrangement are met. Furthermore, only certain parts of the services included in the package are marketed to a single price. The court finds, that travels that are not sold or marketed to a single price, and neither to separate prices which are connected, do not constitute packages under the Act on Package Tours.
However, the court finds that the Travel Guarantees Act requires security also from organizers whose travel arrangements are separate although in whole shows a substantial similarity to a packages under the Act on Package Tours.
Despite the above, the court thus finds that the arrangement of intermediating ferry trips and selling accommodation is, in this case, of such nature and has such similarity to packages under the Act on Package Tours, that the Plaintiff shall provide security under the Travel Guarantees Act.