The highest French court also ruled on the strict liability of travel agents and tour operators in matters of visa issuance25. Liability in the event of the conclusion of a distance contract, a contract which automatically entails the liability of the professional, who must fulfill his obligations26. IX. FINAL REMARKS The Versailles Court of Appeal’s decision on March 27, 2025, which overturned an earlier ruling and found a travel agency fully liable for a traveler’s airport injury, highlights the strong application of Article L. 211-17 of the French Tourism Code. This strict liability system means travel agencies are responsible court’s decision, stating that the previous judgment lacked sufficient reasoning to determine whether the travel agency knew or should have known the specific purpose of the clients’ journey, thus invalidating the initial ruling and referring the case to a different court for reconsideration. This case examines the extent of a travel agency’s duty to inform clients when simply selling flight tickets, which does not require inquiry into the trip’s purpose unless the client discloses this information. The lower court’s decision was annulled due to insufficient justification that the agency was aware the trip was for a pilgrimage. 25 The case concerns the liability of a travel agency for a client who was refused entry to Russia due to an invalid visa. The central issue revolves around the scope of the travel agency’s “obligation de résultat” (obligation of result) in providing services, particularly regarding visa procurement and client communication. Mr. X booked a cruise with TMR France, and the agency was responsible for obtaining a Russian visa on his behalf. After receiving the visa in his passport, the traveller acquired a new passport, which resulted in the cancellation of the previous one that contained the visa. When he attempted to enter Russia with both passports—his old passport, marked “cancelled” with a visa, and his new passport without a visa—he was refused entry. Mr. X then sued TMR France, seeking reimbursement for the trip cost (€18,950) and damages (€10,000). He argued that TMR France failed to inform him of the consequences of obtaining a new passport after the visa had been issued. The court dismissed his claim, ruling that TMR France had fulfilled its contractual obligations by securing a valid visa based on the valid passport provided by Mr. X. The judges determined that it was unreasonable to expect the agency to foresee or inform Mr. X about the consequences of his unilateral and unpredictable act of obtaining a new passport, which rendered the previously issued visa invalid. Consequently, responsibility for the situation was placed on Mr. X, and the agency was exonerated from liability. 26 Civ. 1st, 15 Nov. 2010, No. 09-69.004. The Cour de cassation clarifies the liability of online travel agencies in cases of service failure, particularly when the failure originates from a third-party provider (e.g., an airline). The judges overturned a lower court’s decision, asserting that a professional, even acting as an intermediary, is strictly liable (“responsable de plein droit”) for the proper execution of obligations arising from a distance contract, regardless of whether those obligations are to be performed by the professional themselves or by other service providers. This decision highlights consumer protection in the context of online transactions and package travel arrangements. The case concerns a dispute between customers (Mme X and M. Y) and the online travel agency Go Voyages. The customers had purchased airline tickets through Go Voyages, but their flight was cancelled, and the replacement flight was overbooked, preventing them from travelling. They sued Go Voyages for damages. The Court of Appeal had rejected their claim, stating Go Voyages was only an intermediary and not responsible for the airline’s actions. However, the Cour de cassation overturned this decision, holding that under consumer law, the professional (Go Voyages) is strictly liable for the proper performance of the contract, even if other service providers undertake the obligations. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration, and Go Voyages was ordered to pay €3,000 to the customers. 206 CARLOS TORRES
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==