Cour d'appel de Paris, 6 décembre 2018, n°17/02676
Item
Référence
Cour d'appel de Paris, 6 décembre 2018, n°17/02676
Convention
Convention de Montréal
Article
Article 01
17
17
Pays
France
Juridiction
Cour d'appel Paris
Composition de la juridiction
Mme POINSEAUX (présidente),Mme LEFEVRE (conseillère),
Mme BOU (conseillère),
Mme Z. (greffière)
Mme BOU (conseillère),
Mme Z. (greffière)
Résumé
A passenger claims that an airline agent lost his passport during the check-in phase for a flight from Paris to Montreal. The passenger then requests compensation for the damage he has suffered. The District Court dismissed his request for lack of proof, the passenger therefore appealed.
Attendu
Consequently, X… does not demonstrate neither the failure of the airline company in the loss of his passport, nor the loss of the invoked visa of which nothing proves moreover that it was in the passport. Under these conditions, X… is without fault, in accordance with article L. 6421-2 of the transport code providing that the carrier can only embark passengers for international transport after proof that they are regularly authorized to land at the point of arrival and at stopovers. Indeed, the airline company did not let him board the plane and X… is not justified in claiming any compensation for denied boarding pursuant to Regulation (EC) n° 261/2004 of Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004, article 2 j of the Regulation defining denied boarding as' the refusal to carry passengers on a flight, although they have presented themselves under the conditions set out in Article 3 (2), unless there is a reasonable justification for refusing boarding, in particular for reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documents'.
Interprétation
The passenger argues that the Montreal Convention can be applied because he assimilates the passport to an "unchecked baggage" (article 17 paragraph 2). The airline company argues that the former article 1315 of the Civil Code , concerning the burden of proof can be applied. Indeed, the passenger need to prove that the airline company lost his passport.
In this case, the Court of Appeal holds that the airline company cannot be held responsible for the loss of the passport because of lack of proof.
In this case, the Court of Appeal holds that the airline company cannot be held responsible for the loss of the passport because of lack of proof.
Mot clés
Passport loss
Montreal Convention applicability
extinctive prescription
Montreal Convention applicability
extinctive prescription