By basing its decision on these gaps in proof on the part of the consorts, the appellate court effectively reversed the burden of proof: instead of requiring the agency to show that the damage resulted from a non‑contractual service, it placed on the victims and their heirs the burden of proving elements that would have allowed the stay at hotel Le Paradis to be considered a contractual service. The Cour de cassation explicitly holds that the Court of Appeal “inverted the burden of proof” and, in doing so, violated Article 1315 of the Civil Code and Article 23 of Law no. 92‑645 (Article L. 211‑17 of the Code du tourisme in the applicable wording). On a procedural level, the Court applies Article 625 of the Code of Civil Procedure to remove New Mauritius Hotels Ltd and Beachcomber Ltd from the proceedings (“mise hors de cause”), on the basis that their presence is not necessary before the court of remand. In its operative part, the Cour de cassation: – quashes and annuls the Paris Court of Appeal’s judgment of 8 February 2024, but only insofar as it dismissed the damages claims brought by V. and O. S. against Coopérative Selectour; – remits the case, on that point, to the Versailles Court of Appeal; – removes New Mauritius Hotels Ltd and Beachcomber Ltd from the case; – orders Coopérative Selectour and MMA IARD to bear the costs and, under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to pay a global sum of €3,000 to V. and O. S., rejecting all other claims; – orders that the present judgment be transcribed in the margin or following the partially quashed judgment. Doctrinally, the decision reinforces the idea that the travel organiser’s strict liability is accompanied by a strengthened allocation of the burden of proof: whenever the damage occurs during the contractual travel period, the agency bears the onus of showing that the harmful activity was not part of the package. The traveller (or their heirs) cannot be required to prove the circumstances of hotel changes or the inclusion or exclusion of specific services to trigger the organiser’s liability. 49 BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CASE OF STRICT LIABILITY FOR THE ORGANISER
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==