Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-provence, 1 juillet 2020, n°19/09982
Item
Référence
Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-provence, 1 juillet 2020, n°19/09982
Convention
Convention de Montréal
Article
Article 17
35
35
Pays
France
Juridiction
Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-provence
Composition de la juridiction
M. Noel (président) ; Mme Gilly-Escoffier (conseillère) ; Mme Vella (conseillère)
Résumé
Un passager a embarqué sur un vol interne de Marignane à Ajaccio, lors du débarquement le passager a chuté sur l'escalier de débarquement. Le passager assigne donc la compagnie aérienne, son assurance, la mutuelle et la caisse primaire d'assurance maladie en réparation de son préjudice personnel.
La Convention de Montréal s'applique à tout transport aérien international, or en l'espèce il s'agit d'un transport aérien interne donc la Convention devrait être, en principe, inapplicable. Cependant, les juges de la Cour d'appel retiennent que la Convention de Montréal s'applique à ce litige par application de l'article L6421-3 du code des transports. Le dommage est survenu lors du débarquement le 7 septembre 2013, le transporteur aérien est donc responsable du préjudice subi le passager, par application de l'article 17 de la Convention de Montréal. Or le passager assigne en justice la compagnie aérienne le 17, 18 et 19 octobre 2017, invoquant e délai de prescription quinquennale du droit interne (article 2224 du Code civil). Les juges de la Cour d'appel rappellent en se fondant sur l'article 35 qu'il s'agit d'une prescri+I14ption biennale et non quinquennale car la Convention de Montréal est applicable aux faits d'espèce. Le délai de recours de la Convention de Montréal évince donc le délai national.
La Convention de Montréal s'applique à tout transport aérien international, or en l'espèce il s'agit d'un transport aérien interne donc la Convention devrait être, en principe, inapplicable. Cependant, les juges de la Cour d'appel retiennent que la Convention de Montréal s'applique à ce litige par application de l'article L6421-3 du code des transports. Le dommage est survenu lors du débarquement le 7 septembre 2013, le transporteur aérien est donc responsable du préjudice subi le passager, par application de l'article 17 de la Convention de Montréal. Or le passager assigne en justice la compagnie aérienne le 17, 18 et 19 octobre 2017, invoquant e délai de prescription quinquennale du droit interne (article 2224 du Code civil). Les juges de la Cour d'appel rappellent en se fondant sur l'article 35 qu'il s'agit d'une prescri+I14ption biennale et non quinquennale car la Convention de Montréal est applicable aux faits d'espèce. Le délai de recours de la Convention de Montréal évince donc le délai national.
Attendu
Domestic law of the signatory States intervenes only in a residual way, that is to say only for the definition of the methods to calculate the biennial period and not, in case of denied boarding and cancellation or long delay of a flight as in matters of compensation and assistance to passengers (EC regulation 261/2004 of February 11, 2004), for setting the duration of the limitation period.
X ... is therefore not justified in claiming to substitute for the five-year prescription, of Article 2224 of the French civil code (applicable in matters of bodily injury), the prescription of the Article 35 of the convention. This article is the only one applicable in matters of actions repairing injuries to the bodily integrity of passengers on board or during embarkation or disembarkation operations.
The law of the court seized, under article 35 in fine, is contained in articles 2233 to 2246 of the French civil code which. Among the various causes of postponement of the starting point, suspension or interruption of the prescription, provide for legal action (article 2241) and recognition by the debtor of the right of the one against whom he prescribed (article 2240).
On one hand, no legal action interrupted the two-year period of article 35. The accident took place on September 7, 2013, the summons was only issued on October 17, 18 and 20, 2017’ : the prescription was acquired on September 8, 2015.
On the other hand, the letters of SA AXA Corporate Solutions that X… produces do not characterize any recognition of its responsibility by the carrier, whether it is the first letter of January 6, 2015 '(prior to the acquisition of the prescription) or the second letter of October 29, 2015 '(after the prescription was acquired). In this second letter, the circumstance that the insurer chooses to contest the liability of the insured, without immediately invoking the end of inadmissibility drawn from the prescription does not constitute a waiver. To be accepted, the waiver of a right must in fact leave no room for ambiguity, which is not the case here.
X ... is therefore not justified in claiming to substitute for the five-year prescription, of Article 2224 of the French civil code (applicable in matters of bodily injury), the prescription of the Article 35 of the convention. This article is the only one applicable in matters of actions repairing injuries to the bodily integrity of passengers on board or during embarkation or disembarkation operations.
The law of the court seized, under article 35 in fine, is contained in articles 2233 to 2246 of the French civil code which. Among the various causes of postponement of the starting point, suspension or interruption of the prescription, provide for legal action (article 2241) and recognition by the debtor of the right of the one against whom he prescribed (article 2240).
On one hand, no legal action interrupted the two-year period of article 35. The accident took place on September 7, 2013, the summons was only issued on October 17, 18 and 20, 2017’ : the prescription was acquired on September 8, 2015.
On the other hand, the letters of SA AXA Corporate Solutions that X… produces do not characterize any recognition of its responsibility by the carrier, whether it is the first letter of January 6, 2015 '(prior to the acquisition of the prescription) or the second letter of October 29, 2015 '(after the prescription was acquired). In this second letter, the circumstance that the insurer chooses to contest the liability of the insured, without immediately invoking the end of inadmissibility drawn from the prescription does not constitute a waiver. To be accepted, the waiver of a right must in fact leave no room for ambiguity, which is not the case here.
Interprétation
The Montreal Convention applies to all international air transport, but in this case it is internal air transport so the Convention should be inapplicable. However, the judges of the Court of Appeal hold that the Montreal Convention applies to this dispute by application of article L6421-3 of the "Code des transports".
The damage occurred during disembarkation on September 7, 2013, the air carrier is therefore responsible for the damage suffered by the passenger, by application of article 17 of the Montreal Convention. However, the passenger sued the airline on October 17, 18 and 19, 2017, invoking the five-year limitation period of domestic law (article 2224 of the "Code civil"). The judges of the Court of Appeal based on article 35, recall that it is a biennial prescription and not a five-year prescription because the Montreal Convention is applicable tin this case. The deadline for appealing under the Montreal Convention therefore eliminates the national deadline.
The damage occurred during disembarkation on September 7, 2013, the air carrier is therefore responsible for the damage suffered by the passenger, by application of article 17 of the Montreal Convention. However, the passenger sued the airline on October 17, 18 and 19, 2017, invoking the five-year limitation period of domestic law (article 2224 of the "Code civil"). The judges of the Court of Appeal based on article 35, recall that it is a biennial prescription and not a five-year prescription because the Montreal Convention is applicable tin this case. The deadline for appealing under the Montreal Convention therefore eliminates the national deadline.
Mot clés
Fall
disembarking
statute of limitations
liability
disembarking
statute of limitations
liability