Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:673
Date: 2025-09-04
Language of the case: French

Anonymised version 
Translation C-629/24 – 1 
Case C-629/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
25 September 2024 
Referring court: 
Cour de cassation (France) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
15 May 2024 
Appellants: 
MH 
Costa Crociere SpA 
Respondents: 
Costa Crociere SpA 
Axyme Selàrl 
Generali IARD SA 
Hiscox Insurance Company Ltd 
Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie (CPAM) de Paris 
DI 
DM and WT 
Croisière Club SAS and Hiscox SA 
Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie (CPAM) du Puy-De-Dôme 
      
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 5. 2024 – CASE C-629/24 – 1 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
[…] JUDGMENT OF THE COUR DE CASSATION (COURT OF 
CASSATION, FRANCE), FIRST CIVIL CHAMBER, OF 15 MAY 2024 
I – MH […] lodged Appeal No X 23-10.324 against a judgment delivered on 
17 November 2022 by the Cour d’appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris) […] in 
the dispute between: 
1. Costa Crociere (Spa), a company incorporated under Italian law, having its 
registered office in […] Italy, whose French branch is located at […], […], 
2. Axyme, a société d’exercice libéral à responsabilité limitée (limited liability 
company formed by persons practising a profession), having its registered office 
at […], in its capacity as the court-appointed liquidator of the company Blue 
Passion, 
3. Generali IARD, a public limited company, having its registered office at 
[…], […] in its capacity as Blue Passion’s insurer, 
4. Hiscox Insurance Company Limited, a company incorporated under English 
law, having its registered office in [the] […] United Kingdom, 
5. the Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie (CPAM) de […] (Local Sickness 
Insurance Fund of […]), having its registered office at […] 
respondents in the cassation proceedings. 
II – Costa Crociere (Spa) […] lodged Appeal No X 23-13.383 against a judgment 
delivered on 14 February 2023 by the Cour d’appel de Versailles (Court of 
Appeal, Versailles) […] in the dispute between: 
1. DI […], deceased, 
2. DM, […] both on his own behalf and as an heir of DI, […], 
3. Croisière Club, a simplified joint-stock company, having its registered office 
[at] […], 
4. Hi[s]cox [sic] Insurance Company Limited, a public limited company, 
5. the Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie (CPAM) du Puy-de-Dôme (Local 
Sickness Insurance Fund of Puy-de-Dôme), having its registered office [at] […], 
6. Hiscox, a public limited company, […] in its capacity as Croisière Club’s 
professional indemnity insurer, having its registered office [in] […] Luxembourg 
[…], whose French branch is located [at] […], 
7. WT, […] in his capacity as an heir of DI, […], 
respondents in the cassation proceedings. 
COSTA CROCIERE AND OTHERS 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
[…] [Procedural considerations] 
1 On account of the connection between them, Appeal Nos X 23-13.383 and X 23-
10.324 are joined. 
Facts and procedure 
Appeal No X 23-13.383 
2 On 11 February 2016, DM purchased a package holiday from Croisière Club 
consisting of a cruise to the Greek islands from 30 March to 11 April 2016 for 
himself and DI. That package included the cruise on a boat owned by Costa 
Crociere, incorporated under Italian law, with ports of call, accommodation, full 
board, onboard entertainment, the gala evening, use of the swimming pool and of 
all the onboard facilities. 
3 On 30 March 2016, DI fell after an unidentified person collided with her while she 
was attempting to help herself to the buffet laid out on the boat, which was still 
moored in the port of […]. Her fall caused her to suffer a fracture of the left 
humeral head. 
4 DI and DM brought an action for damages against Costa Crociere [and] Croisière 
Club […]. Hiscox Insurance Company Limited, Croisière Club’s insurer, 
intervened voluntarily in the proceedings. 
5 By judgment of 14 February 2023, the Versailles Court of Appeal, applying 
Article L. 211-1 et seq. of the code du tourisme (French Tourism Code), 
established by Law No 92-645 of 13 July 1992 laying down the conditions for the 
exercise of activities relating to the organisation and sale of journeys or stays and 
transposing Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, 
package holidays and package tours: 
– upheld the judgment of 22 October 2020 in so far as it held that the 
organiser of that package holiday was automatically liable [and in so far as it] 
ordered Costa Crociere and Croisière Club to pay various sums to DI and DM as 
compensation for the harm suffered […]; 
– ordered Hiscox Insurance Company Limited, the predecessor in title to 
Hiscox, to release and indemnify Croisière Club in respect of the awards made 
against it; 
– ordered Costa Crociere to release and indemnify Croisière Club and Hiscox 
in respect of the awards made against them. 
6 DI died on 23 May 2023. The proceedings were taken over by her heirs, DM and 
WT. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 5. 2024 – CASE C-629/24 – 1 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
Appeal No X 23-10.324 
7 On 18 January 2017, MH booked a […] cruise with Blue Passion on a ship 
belonging to […] Costa Crociere, that was to take her from […] to […] between 
15 February and 17 March 2017. 
8 During the night of 17 to 18 February 2017, she fell when getting out of bed, 
suffered a fracture […] and was repatriated. 
9 On 12, 17 and 19 July 2017, she brought actions for damages against Blue Passion 
and Costa Crociere […]. Hiscox Insurance Company Limited intervened 
voluntarily in the proceedings in its capacity as those companies’ insurer. 
10 By judgment of 17 November 2022, the Paris Court of Appeal, applying 
Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
23 April 2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of 
accidents, and the Athens Convention set out in Annex I thereto: 
[…] – declared the claims brought against Blue Passion, which is in compulsory 
liquidation, by MH, […] and any third party calling on guarantees to be 
inadmissible; 
– set aside the judgment finding Costa Crociere and Blue Passion liable and 
dismissed MH’s claims against Costa Crociere and Hiscox Insurance Company 
Limited [as well as] the claims of […]. 
Statement of the grounds of appeal 
11 By the first ground of Appeal No X 23-13.383, Costa Crociere complains that the 
Versailles Court of Appeal refused to apply Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation 
392/2009 and Articles 1 and 3 of the Athens Convention and held that it was 
liable for the harm suffered by DI and DM as a result of the accident of 30 March 
2016 pursuant to Article L. 211-1 et seq. of the French Tourism Code, resulting 
from the transposition of Directive 90/314. Costa Crociere submits that that 
Regulation applies, in the event of the death of or personal injury to a passenger, 
to sea cruises having the characteristics of a package holiday within the meaning 
of that Directive. 
12 By the third ground of Appeal No X 23-10.324, MH complains that the Paris 
Court of Appeal refused to apply Articles L. 211-2 and L. 211-16 of the French 
Tourism Code and misapplied Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation 392/2009 and 
Articles 1 and 3 of the Athens Convention. It submits that that Regulation and that 
Convention do not apply to package holidays, which are governed by the 
automatic liability set out in the French Tourism Code. 
COSTA CROCIERE AND OTHERS 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
13 The grounds of the appeals under consideration thus require it to be determined 
which provisions govern Costa Crociere’s liability for personal injury caused to a 
passenger during a cruise. 
Reminder of the legislation 
The provisions applicable to package holidays 
Directive 90/314 
14 Directive 90/314 provides as follows: 
– Article 2: 
‘For the purposes of this Directive: 
1. “package” means the pre-arranged combination of not fewer than two of the 
following when sold or offered for sale at an inclusive price and when the service 
covers a period of more than twenty-four hours or includes overnight 
accommodation: 
(a) transport; 
(b) accommodation; 
(c) other tourist services not ancillary to transport or accommodation and 
accounting for a significant proportion of the package. 
[…] 
2. “organizer” means the person who, other than occasionally, organizes 
packages and sells or offers them for sale, whether directly or through a retailer; 
[…]’ 
– Article 5 
‘1. Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that the organizer 
and/or retailer to the contract is liable to the consumer for the proper performance 
of the obligations arising from the contract, irrespective of whether such 
obligations are to be performed by that organizer and/or retailer or by other 
suppliers of services without prejudice to the right of the organizer and/or retailer 
to pursue those other suppliers of services. 
2. With regard to the damage resulting for the consumer from the failure to 
perform or the improper performance of the contract, Member States shall take the 
necessary steps to ensure that the organizer and/or retailer is/are liable unless such 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 5. 2024 – CASE C-629/24 – 1 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
failure to perform or improper performance is attributable neither to any fault of 
theirs nor to that of another supplier of services, because: 
– the failures which occur in the performance of the contract are attributable to 
the consumer, 
– such failures are attributable to a third party unconnected with the provision 
of the services contracted for, and are unforeseeable or unavoidable, 
– such failures are due to a case of force majeure such as that defined in 
Article 4(6), second subparagraph (ii), or to an event which the organiser and/or 
retailer or the supplier of services, even with all due care, could not foresee or 
forestall. 
[…] 
In the matter of damages arising from the failure to perform or the improper 
performance of the services involved in the package, the Member States may 
allow compensation to be limited in accordance with the international conventions 
governing such services. 
In the matter of damage other than personal injury resulting from the failure to 
perform or the improper performance of the services involved in the package, the 
Member States may allow compensation to be limited under the contract. Such 
limitation shall not be unreasonable. 
[…]’ 
– Article 8 
‘Member States may adopt or return more stringent provisions in the field covered 
by this Directive to protect the consumer.’ 
National law 
15 Directive 90/314 was transposed into national law by Law No 92-645 of 13 July 
1992, the provisions of which were subsequently codified in the French Tourism 
Code. 
16 The version of the relevant articles of that Code is that resulting from Law 
No 2009-888 of 22 July 2009. They provide as follows: 
– Article L. 211-1: 
‘I.– This Chapter shall apply to natural or legal persons engaged or assisting, 
whatever the terms of their remuneration may be, in operations consisting of the 
organisation or sale of: 
COSTA CROCIERE AND OTHERS 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
(a) Individual or group travel or holidays; 
(b) Services which may be provided in connection with travel or holidays, 
including the issue of tickets, the booking of rooms in hotel establishments or 
tourist accommodation and the issue of accommodation or catering vouchers; 
[…]’ 
– Article L. 211-2: 
‘The following services constitute a package holiday: 
1. Resulting from the pre-arranged combination of not fewer than two 
operations relating, respectively, to transport, accommodation or other tourist 
services not ancillary to transport or accommodation and accounting for a 
significant proportion of the package; 
2. Covering a period of more than twenty-four hours or including overnight 
accommodation; 
3. Sold or offered for sale at an inclusive price.’ 
– Article L. 211-16: 
‘Any natural or legal person engaging in the operations referred to in Article L. 
211-1 shall be automatically liable to the purchaser for the proper performance of 
the obligations arising from the contract, irrespective of whether that contract was 
concluded at a distance and whether such obligations are to be performed by itself 
or by other suppliers of services, without prejudice to its right of recourse against 
the latter and within the limits of the compensation provided for by international 
conventions. 
However, it may exonerate itself from all or part of its liability by proving that the 
failure to perform or the improper performance of the contract is attributable 
either to the purchaser, or to the unforeseeable and unavoidable act of a third party 
unconnected with the provision of the services contracted for or to force majeure.’ 
17 Pursuant to those provisions, the Court of Cassation held that the organiser of a 
cruise having the characteristics of a package holiday within the meaning of 
Article L. 211-2 of the French Tourism Code falls within the scope of the system 
of automatic liability established by Article L. 211-16 of the said Code. Thus, a 
company which organised not only the carriage of passengers but all the 
operations comprising the cruise, including all the additional tourist services 
offered on that basis, was held to be automatically liable for the proper 
performance of the obligations arising from the contract concluded by the 
purchaser of a package holiday (First Civil Chamber, 9 December 2015, Appeal 
No 14-20.533, Bull. 2015, I, No 318). 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 5. 2024 – CASE C-629/24 – 1 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
Regulation 392/2009 
18 Regulation 392/2009 meets the following objectives described in its recitals: 
‘(1) Within the framework of the common transport policy, further measures 
need to be adopted in order to enhance safety in maritime transport. Those 
measures should include liability rules for damage caused to passengers, since it is 
important to ensure a proper level of compensation for passengers involved in 
maritime accidents 
(2) The Protocol of 2002 to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of 
Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974 was adopted on 1 November 2002 
under the auspices of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). The 
Community and its Member States are in the process of deciding whether to 
accede to or ratify that Protocol In any case, the provisions thereof incorporated 
by this Regulation should apply for the Community from no later than 
31 December 2012 
(3) The Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their 
Luggage by Sea 1974, as amended by the Protocol of 2002 (the Athens 
Convention), applies to international transport only. The distinction between 
national and international transport has been eliminated within the internal market 
in maritime transport services and it is therefore appropriate to have the same 
level and nature of liability in both international and national transport within the 
Community 
(4) The insurance arrangements required under the Athens Convention must 
take into consideration the financial means of ship-owners and insurance 
companies. Ship-owners must be in a position to manage their insurance 
arrangements in an economically acceptable way and, particularly in the case of 
small shipping companies operating national transport services, account must be 
taken of the seasonal nature of their operations. When setting insurance 
arrangements under this Regulation, account should therefore be taken of the 
different classes of ship. 
(9) The provisions of the Athens Convention (Annex I) and of the IMO 
Guidelines (Annex II) should be understood, mutatis mutandis, in the context of 
Community legislation. 
(10) The system of liability provided for by this Regulation should be extended 
step-by-step to the different classes of ship as set out in Article 4 of Council 
Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger 
ships. Account should be taken of the consequences for fares and the ability of the 
market to obtain affordable insurance coverage at the level required against the 
policy background of strengthening passengers' rights and the seasonal nature of 
some of the traffic. 
[…] 
COSTA CROCIERE AND OTHERS 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
(18) Member States have taken the firm commitment in their Statement on 
Maritime Safety of 9 October 2008 to express, no later than 1 January 2012, their 
consent to be bound by the International Convention on Limitation of Liability for 
Maritime Claims, 1976, as amended by the Protocol of 1996. Member States may 
make use of the option provided for in Article 15(3bis) of that Convention to 
regulate, by means of specific provisions of this Regulation, the system of 
limitation of liability to be applied to passengers.’ 
19 It provides as follows: 
– ‘Article 1: Subject matter 
1. This Regulation lays down the Community regime relating to liability and 
insurance for the carriage of passengers by sea as set out in the relevant provisions 
of: 
(a) the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their 
Luggage by Sea, 1974, as amended by the Protocol of 2002 (the Athens 
Convention) set out in Annex I; 
[…] 
– Article 2: Scope 
This Regulation shall apply to any international carriage within the meaning of 
point 9 of Article 1 of the Athens Convention and to carriage by sea within a 
single Member State on board ships of Classes A and B under Article 4 of 
Directive 98/18/EC, where: 
(a) the ship is flying the flag of or is registered in a Member State; 
(b) the contract of carriage has been made in a Member State; or 
(c) the place of departure or destination, according to the contract of carriage, is 
in a Member State. 
Member States may apply this Regulation to all domestic sea-going voyages. 
– Article 3: Liability and insurance 
1. The liability regime in respect of passengers, their luggage and their vehicles 
and the rules on insurance or other financial security shall be governed by this 
Regulation, by Articles 1 and 1bis, Article 2(2), Articles 3 to 16 and Articles 18, 
20 and 21 of the Athens Convention set out in Annex I and by the provisions of 
the IMO Guidelines set out in Annex II. 
[…] 
– Article 7 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 5. 2024 – CASE C-629/24 – 1 
 
10  
Anonymised version 
Without prejudice to the obligations of tour operators set out in Council Directive 
90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package 
tours, the carrier and/or performing carrier shall ensure that passengers are 
provided with appropriate and comprehensible information regarding their rights 
under this Regulation’. 
20 According to Article 12 thereof, the Regulation shall apply from the date of the 
entry into force of the Athens Convention for the Community, and in any case 
from no later than 31 December 2012. 
21 Point 9 of Article 1 of the Athens Convention states that the concept of 
international carriage ‘means any carriage in which, according to the contract of 
carriage, the place of departure and the place of destination are situated in two 
different States, or in a single State if, according to the contract of carriage or the 
scheduled itinerary, there is an intermediate port of call in another State’. 
22 Article 14, entitled ‘Basis for claims’, provides that ‘no action for damages for the 
death of or personal injury to a passenger, or for the loss of or damage to luggage, 
shall be brought against a carrier or performing carrier otherwise than in 
accordance with this Convention’. 
Grounds for the reference for a preliminary ruling 
23 The Court of Justice of the European Union has not yet ruled on the question of 
the application of Regulation 392/2009 to the organiser of sea cruises having the 
characteristics of a package holiday. 
24 The Court of Cassation has not so far been called upon to rule on the application 
of that Regulation to the organiser of sea cruises having such characteristics. 
25 The courts adjudicating on the substance of the case are divided: 
26 In the judgment under Appeal No X 23-13.383, the Versailles Court of Appeal 
held that Regulation 392/2009 does not provide for any derogation from the 
system established by Directive 90/314 and concerns a contract relating solely to 
the carriage of passengers by sea, that the case-law of the Court of Cassation, 
arising from the judgment of 9 December 2015, cited above, remains applicable 
even since the entry into force of the Regulation, that Directive 90/314 applies to 
sea cruises and seeks to ensure better protection for consumers, in particular by 
means of automatic liability on the part of the trader, and that the Regulation, 
which establishes, throughout the territory of the European Union, a single 
liability and insurance regime applicable to the carriage of passengers by sea, 
concerns international maritime transport and related contracts but does not 
provide for any derogation from the system established by the Directive, therefore 
it does not apply to contracts of carriage which, for an inclusive price, combine 
travel and accommodation. 
COSTA CROCIERE AND OTHERS 
 
11 
Anonymised version 
27 On the contrary, in the judgment under Appeal No X 23-10.324, the Paris Court of 
Appeal held that the journey in question fell within the scope of Regulation 
392/2009, no provision of which excludes sea-going voyages or cruises, and, in 
addition, that Article 7 contains an explicit reference to Directive 90/314. 
28 Similarly, French legal literature is divided: 
29 Some authors consider that the liability of cruise organisers is necessarily covered 
by the provisions of the French Tourism Code [and] that the reference in Article 7 
of Regulation 392/2009 to Directive 90/314 is limited solely to tour operators' 
obligations to inform passengers and in no way to the system of liability 
established by the Directive. 
30 Other authors contend that Article 14 of the Athens Convention, to which 
Article 3 of Regulation 392/2009 refers, provides that no action for damages for 
the death of or personal injury to a passenger, or the loss of or damage to luggage, 
shall be brought against a carrier or performing carrier otherwise than in 
accordance with this Convention, that no provision of the Regulation has excluded 
cruises from its scope, that Article 7 refers to the Directive and that all cruise 
organisers refer, moreover, to the Athens Convention and to the Regulation in 
their general terms and conditions, therefore there is no reason to exclude cruises 
from the scope of the Regulation. 
31 Finally, some authors maintain that a distinction should be drawn according to 
whether an accident suffered by a passenger on a cruise relates to the carriage 
operation itself, in which case the carrier’s liability would fall within the scope of 
the Athens Convention, or to a tourist service provided in connection with that 
carriage, falling within the scope of Directive 90/314. 
32 Since the interpretation of Regulation 392/2009, on which the answer to these 
questions depends, is not so obvious as to leave no room for reasonable doubt, it is 
necessary, in accordance with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union, to refer the questions set out in the operative part to the Court of 
Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. 
ON THOSE GROUNDS, the Court: 
Having regard to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union; 
REFERS the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union: 
‘1. Must Article 2, Article 3(1) and the first paragraph of Article 7 of 
Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
23 April 2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of 
accidents, and Annex I thereto, be interpreted as governing the liability of a 
maritime carrier operating a cruise having the characteristics of a package holiday 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 5. 2024 – CASE C-629/24 – 1 
 
12  
Anonymised version 
within the meaning of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package 
travel, package holidays and package tours? 
2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, do those provisions of 
the Regulation govern the liability of that operator only where the personal injury 
relates to carriage by sea?’ 
[…] [Stay of proceedings] 
[…] [Procedural considerations] 
[…] [Concluding formula and date]