Cour d'Appel de Paris, 17 mai 2018, n°16/16944
Item
Référence
Cour d'Appel de Paris, 17 mai 2018, n°16/16944
Convention
Convention de Montréal
Convention de Varsovie
Convention de Varsovie
Article
Article 22
Pays
France
Juridiction
Cour d'appel de Paris
Composition de la juridiction
M. DAVID (président),Mme MONGIN (conseillère),
Mme BOU (conseillère),
Mmde LEPAGE (greffière)
Mme BOU (conseillère),
Mmde LEPAGE (greffière)
Résumé
Two passengers took a flight from Paris to Tunis, on their arrival in Tunis, they noticed the disappearance of various objects including a camera and a computer in particular. After an unsuccessful amicable settlement attempt, the two passengers sued the airline for compensation.
Attendu
After referring to article 1 of the Montreal Convention and 22 of the Warsaw Convention, the court noted:
That in the present case, it is therefore right that the appellant company argues that the transport provided by the respondents, planned between Paris and Tunis was not governed by this agreement since Tunisia is not a signatory; that it is also rightly that the court maintains that the community regulation nº889/2002 of May 13, 2002, is not applicable to Tunisia since it is not a “community carrier”;
That the appellant company will therefore be followed in its arguments relating to the application of the Warsaw Convention signed on October 12, 1929, modified by the Hague Protocol signed on September 28, 1955, a convention signed and ratified by France and Tunisia, which governs the liability of the carrier in the event of destruction, loss or damage to checked baggage during agreed carriage having as its point of departure and destination two different States Parties; that the respondents do not seriously contest the application of this international convention;
That it follows from this text that the planned amount of compensation due by the carrier in the event of destruction, loss or damage to checked baggage does not constitute a fixed amount but a maximum, so that the traveler must establish the reality, within this limit, of the damage suffered, the burden of proof being reversed when a special declaration of interest has been made;
That in this case if, contrary to the airline company’s claim, the spouses Z… declared to their representatives when they arrived in Tunis the damage caused to their luggage, it was without precision of the missing belongings and the district court rightly considered that the respondents did not provide proof that their belongings had been stolen during the transport of their luggage, the computer and photographic equipment for which they are requesting reimbursement. The only production of the receipts of the purchase being insufficient to establish this fact;
That however, the degradation of their suitcases is not disputed, pictures being also added to the debates, that they must thus be allocated the sum of 500 euros corresponding to the price of two new suitcases, without the price being reduced for obsolescence, since spouses Z… will be required to buy two new suitcases to replace the ones damaged
That in the present case, it is therefore right that the appellant company argues that the transport provided by the respondents, planned between Paris and Tunis was not governed by this agreement since Tunisia is not a signatory; that it is also rightly that the court maintains that the community regulation nº889/2002 of May 13, 2002, is not applicable to Tunisia since it is not a “community carrier”;
That the appellant company will therefore be followed in its arguments relating to the application of the Warsaw Convention signed on October 12, 1929, modified by the Hague Protocol signed on September 28, 1955, a convention signed and ratified by France and Tunisia, which governs the liability of the carrier in the event of destruction, loss or damage to checked baggage during agreed carriage having as its point of departure and destination two different States Parties; that the respondents do not seriously contest the application of this international convention;
That it follows from this text that the planned amount of compensation due by the carrier in the event of destruction, loss or damage to checked baggage does not constitute a fixed amount but a maximum, so that the traveler must establish the reality, within this limit, of the damage suffered, the burden of proof being reversed when a special declaration of interest has been made;
That in this case if, contrary to the airline company’s claim, the spouses Z… declared to their representatives when they arrived in Tunis the damage caused to their luggage, it was without precision of the missing belongings and the district court rightly considered that the respondents did not provide proof that their belongings had been stolen during the transport of their luggage, the computer and photographic equipment for which they are requesting reimbursement. The only production of the receipts of the purchase being insufficient to establish this fact;
That however, the degradation of their suitcases is not disputed, pictures being also added to the debates, that they must thus be allocated the sum of 500 euros corresponding to the price of two new suitcases, without the price being reduced for obsolescence, since spouses Z… will be required to buy two new suitcases to replace the ones damaged
Interprétation
The Court of Appeal upholds the application of the Warsaw Convention as modified by the Hague Protocol signed on September 28, 1955 because Tunisia did not sign the Montreal Convention. Therefore article 22 of the convention is applicable.
The court in this judgment recalls that the amount provided constitutes a maximum and not a lump sum.
In the absence of a declaration of value, the court compensates the passenger up to 500 euros for the damage of his the luggage.
The court in this judgment recalls that the amount provided constitutes a maximum and not a lump sum.
In the absence of a declaration of value, the court compensates the passenger up to 500 euros for the damage of his the luggage.
Mot clés
Stolen objects
Montreal Convention applicability
Warsow Convention applicability
compensation
proof
Montreal Convention applicability
Warsow Convention applicability
compensation
proof