Cour d'appel de Paris, 7 novembre 2019, n°16/25882
Item
Référence
Cour d'appel de Paris, 7 novembre 2019, n°16/25882
Convention
Convention de Montréal
Article
Article 19
22-1
22-1
Pays
France
Juridiction
Cour d'appel de Paris
Composition de la juridiction
M. DAVID (président)Mme TROUILLER (conseillère)
Mme BISCH (conseillère)
Mme LEPAGE (greffière)
Mme BISCH (conseillère)
Mme LEPAGE (greffière)
Résumé
On his flight back, a passenger and his lugagge suffered a significant delay during a connection. Moreover, his lugage will never be found. The passenger sends a complaint to the airline company which remains unsuccessful.
As a result, he sues the airline company to obtain compensation.
As a result, he sues the airline company to obtain compensation.
Attendu
Article 22-1, provides for a compensation ceiling of 4,150 Special Drawing Rights per passenger.
A compensation ceiling means that a weighting/balancing is possible, which is different from a flat-rate compensation. Otherwise all passengers that suffered the delay would be ipso facto entitled to compensation corresponding to 4,150 Special Drawing Rights per passenger, whatever the damage suffered. The first instance judge therefore made no distinction between a lump sum compensation and the compensation provided in articles 19 and 22-1 of the Montreal Convention.
In total absence of invocation of damage other than the ones resulting from the delay, albeit significant, of the flight from Casablanca to Paris on July 19, 2015, it is necessary to halve the compensation ceiling set at 4 150 SDR, that is to say 2,075 SDR multiplied by 1,126 euros. Corresponding to the value of the conversion on the date of assignment, for a final compensation of 2,336.45 euros.
The judgment will therefore be partially reformed and the company ROYAL AIR MAROC sentenced to pay X…, the sum of 2,336.45 euros as compensation for the damage suffered by the delay.
A compensation ceiling means that a weighting/balancing is possible, which is different from a flat-rate compensation. Otherwise all passengers that suffered the delay would be ipso facto entitled to compensation corresponding to 4,150 Special Drawing Rights per passenger, whatever the damage suffered. The first instance judge therefore made no distinction between a lump sum compensation and the compensation provided in articles 19 and 22-1 of the Montreal Convention.
In total absence of invocation of damage other than the ones resulting from the delay, albeit significant, of the flight from Casablanca to Paris on July 19, 2015, it is necessary to halve the compensation ceiling set at 4 150 SDR, that is to say 2,075 SDR multiplied by 1,126 euros. Corresponding to the value of the conversion on the date of assignment, for a final compensation of 2,336.45 euros.
The judgment will therefore be partially reformed and the company ROYAL AIR MAROC sentenced to pay X…, the sum of 2,336.45 euros as compensation for the damage suffered by the delay.
Interprétation
The Court of Appeal returns to the difference between a compensation ceiling and a lump sum compensation. The Court of Appeal indicates "that a weighting is possible" when it comes to a compensation ceiling. The judges in first instance indicated that the compensation could not exceed 4,672.9 euros. However the judges of the Court of Appeal have set the compensation ceiling at 2,336.45 euros and divided it in half.
Mot clés
Delay
luggage delay
compensation
proof
luggage delay
compensation
proof