Cour d'appel de Paris, 27 février 2020, n° 18/08306

Convention de Montréal

Article 01

France

Cour d'appel de Paris

Mme Cesaro-Pautrot (présidente), Mme Lefèvre (conseillère), Mme Chaintron (conseillère)

A travel agency books several flights with a tour operator, flights that are subsequently cancelled. Both parties contract a settlement agreement according to which the tour operator acknowledges his responsibility. Later on, the travel agency claims the performance of the settlement agreement.

As to the admissibility of the action filed by the [travel agency], this action has to be considered an action in contractual liability based on the non execution of the settlement agreement signed by [the travel agency] and [tour operator]; the action can not be classified, as claimed by the appellant, to be based on the original contract concerning the flights themselves. [...]. Thus the Montreal and Guadalajara conventions are not applicable in the present cause, because [the travel agency] has not filed its action against [the tour operator] in its function as air carrier.
Ultimately, the claim put forward by the appellant trying to establish that the settlement agreement itself, concluded on february 14, 2001, had to be regarded as a contract of carriage because [the tour operator] agreed to take every possible measure to ensure the good execution of the flights booked for february 19 and 22, 2001, has to be rejected.

The parties debate whether a claim based on the settlement agreement is subject to the 2 year extinctive prescription imposed by the Montreal convention or whether it is subject to the ancient 10 year prescription (today : 5 years) held by French law for obligations that result form commercial acts concluded betwenn merchants (art. L 110-4 French Code de commerce). The court adopts the position that results from the given citation.

Claim based on a settlement agreement
applicability of the convention