TOUR GUIDES AND THE VISIT OF TOUR GUIDES AND THE VISIT OF His Holiness the Pope to the Holy LandHis Holiness the Pope to the Holy Land By Dr. Jose Fosman

(President Emeritus of IFTTA)

Advocate Notary, & Registered Mediator

4, Berkowitz St. Beit Hapraklitim 5th.F. Museum Tower

Tel Aviv

Portugal 10-14/10/2007

 

THE IMPORTANCE OF TOUR GUIDESTHE IMPORTANCE OF TOUR GUIDES

* ESCORT GUIDES. (Tour Manager’s)

* Difference between them.

*Agreement between he Int. Asso. Of Tour Managers and the European Federation of Tour Guides Association.

• Israel: Tourism Services Regulations (escorts in Overseas Tours –1990. Revoked on 4.3.97

• IMPORTANCE GIVEN BY COUNTRIES TO THEIR HISORIC MONUMENTS, CULTURAL HERITAGE, Seen as PUBLIC INTEREST.

• Saudi Arabia- 1rst. International Conference: A Road map to preserve the Architectural Heritage in the Islamic World

• Government of Wales Act (2006)

.

Art. 25* Carrier willful misconduct . (Warsaw)*Recklessly and with knowledge that damage would proably result (Hague).

Art. 17. DEATH or WOUNDING OF PASSENGERS (on board, embarking or Desembaking.

1.4. Israel has not yet ratified the Montreal Convention-1999

Derecho Preexistente.

Nuevas Leyes (Ordenanzas: Companias, Letras de Cambio, Seguros, Derecho Penal, etc.)

Laguna Jurídica: Derecho Ingles

Art. 9© Tourism Regulations (Guides) 1967.

“ A person will not act as Guide for consideration, will not transport for consideration as Guide and will not offer his services as a Guide for consideration, unless he is in possession of a Licence”

• UNDERSTANDING betweem the Representative of Churches in Israel, Vatican, Ministries of Tourism, Foreign Affairs:

• When the Tour is one of Pilmigrage, can be guided by the personal of the Church in every part of the Country, when the guidance is connected with Religious and Cult which are the principal purpose of the Visit.

* Argumentation by the Israel Tour Guides Association.

JUDGEMENTS OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

1. Israel Association of Guides- v/ Ministry of Tourism and others. –Case “Bagatz 441/87

Dismissed:

a. Reasonable (The distinction:Tourism-Pilmigrages)

b. Spiritual Leaders

c.Lession to the Free Religious Cult.

d) Agreed by the Ass.

e) Art. 9© applies only to paid Guidance.

2. Israel Ass. of Guides v/ Min. of Tourism and others – Further Hearing- Case 27/87-

Dismissed: on 30/12/87. Technical Reasons. Not comply with Art. 30 Court Law.

3 Israel Ass. of Tour Guides v/ Ministry of Tourism and others Case “Bagatz: 455/89. Judgement delivered 19.2.92: “ We didn’t see to add to what was said en Bagatz 441/87

-----

No further intent to apply to the Courts..

Administrative efforts , lobbing Without results.

LEGAL SITUATION IN ISRAEL REGARDING TOUR GUIDES IN RELATION WITH RELIGIOUS TOURISM:NO NEED OF ISRAELI TOUR GUIDE WHEN THE GROUP IS GUIDED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE CHURCH GUIDES

  COMPARISON WITH TOUR GUIDES IN THE E.U BEFORE

DIRECTIVE 2005/36

• Art.49 of the Treaty: Free of movement and work between citizens of the Member States.

• Mutual Recognicion of Professional Titles.

• European Court of Justice: Restrictions may arise as a result of the application of National Rules in case of:• A) Public Interest.• B) Protection of Consumers.• C) Conservation of National Historical and Artistic Heritage

Commision v/ Kingdom of Spain 375/92, ECR 923:“…When the guidance is not in places like Museums or Historical monuments

(which in those cases the restrictions are compatible with the Treaty…..”

TOUR GUIDES IN THE E.U. AFTER DIRECTIVE 2005/36

The Directive’s main object is that “Membr States shall not restrict for any reasons relating to professional qualifications, the free provision of Services in another Member State.

No special provisions for “Tour Guides” – General System.

• Position of the European Federation of Tourist Guides Associations.• * Cross Border services on a temporary basis under the same

professional title if the profession is regulated in his Home Member State. If not the same rules apply if the Service Provider has pursued the profession for at least 2 years out of the last 10 years.

IT SEEMS THAT ATTENDING TO THE PREAMBLE OF THE DIRECTIVES, THE SAME PRINCIPES OF RESTRICTIONS FOR FOREIGN GUIDES CAN BE ALSO ARGUED TODAY:

• Section 3: “ Discriminatory provisions may be laid down by the Member State, provided that these are objectively justified and proportionate.

• Section 6:…” specific provisions should be envisaged for regulated professions having public health or safety implications.

• Section 10: Minimun training conditions for certain professions.• Section 11: The recognition…”does not prevent a Member State

for making any person pusuing a profession on its territory subject to specific requirements due to the application of professional rules justified by the general public interest…”justified by the general public interest…”

• Section 15: “…. In each case be justified by an imperative Section 15: “…. In each case be justified by an imperative requirement in the general interestrequirement in the general interest””

• Section 16 …” These criteria could for example include Section 16 …” These criteria could for example include requirements such as additional training , an adaptaion requirements such as additional training , an adaptaion period…”period…”

• Public Interest (not to be distorted the Cultural Heritage of the Country.)

• Consumer Protection (the right of every visitor to receive the right explanation)

• Public interest. (The right of each country to show its Historical and Cultural Heritage in a proper mode by Expert guides of their own country.

• THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR . ATTENTION

• THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR . ATTENTION

• Public Interest (not to be distorted the Cultural Heritage of the Country.)

• Consumer Protection (the right of every visitor to receive the right explanation)

• Public interest. (The right of each country to show its Historical and Cultural Heritage in a proper mode by Expert guides of their own country.