incident)87 and the loss su%ered as a result of the loss of or damage to cabin luggage88 or other luggage.89 As “carrier”, under the AC means a person by or on behalf of whom a contract of carriage has been concluded, whether the carriage is actually performed by that person or by a performing carrier90 the concept of carrier also covers a package organiser where carriage by sea is part of the contract concluded with that organiser, in partciular where an organiser o%ers cruise packages. "is, of course, raises the question of exclusivity as provided for in Article 29 of the Montreal Convention or Article 14 of the Athens Convention. "ere is no global consensus on how this exclusivity has to be interpreted. While some states tend to a rather restrictive view according to which there is either a claim under the respective convention or no claim at all,91 others only apply the exclusivity to claims which are in principle covered by the convention.92 It seems quite likely that national courts will seek clari!cation by a preliminary ruling of the CJEU in this regard. When judging the compatibility of the European Air Passenger Regulation with the Montreal Convention, the CJEU took the view that the compensation granted by the former in cases of cancellation or long delay fell outside the scope of Article 29 of the Montreal Convention.93 It therefore seems likely that the CJEU will rather follow the concept of a “weak exclusivity”. To date, national courts have predominantly ruled that the AC takes precedence over national implementations of the PTD. 94 In a pending case,95 however, the Advocate General96 suggests Article 2, Article 3(1) and the !rst paragraph of Article 7 of Reg (EC) No 392/2009, as well as Annex I thereto,97 to be interpreted as governing the liability of a maritime carrier operating a cruise with the characteristics of a package holiday only in so far as it concerns personal injuries sustained by a passenger as a result of the sea carriage. Conversely, 87 Article 3(1) and (2) AC. 88 Article 3(3) AC. 89 Article 3(4) AC. 90 Article 1(1)(a) AC. 91 “Strong exclusivity”; see for example U.K. Supreme Court, Stott v !omas Cook Tour Operators Limited [2014] UKSC 15; 92 „Weak exclusivity“; see for example OGH 17.12.2012, 10 Ob 47/12b. 93 CJEU 10.01.2006, C-344/04 IATA and ELFAA v Department for Transport and CJEU 19.11.2009, joint Cases C-402/07 Sturgeon v Condor and C-432/07 Böck ea v Air France. 94 See Norfolk v My Travel [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 106; HG Wien, judgment of 17 Feb 2022, 60 R 136/21m; Helsingin hovioikeus (Appelate Court Helsinki), judgment No. 1040 9191 of 12 Dec. 2025. 95 CJEU Case C-629/24 – Costa Crociere. 96 Opinion of Advocate General Norkus of 4 Sept. 2025 in Case C-629/24 – Costa Crociere. 97 "e Athens Convention. 360 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==