Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

4 June 2026 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Transport – Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 – Liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents – Article 2 – Scope – Article 3 – Liability and insurance – Article 7 – Information to passengers – Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea – Article 3 – Liability of the carrier for the death of or personal injury to a passenger – Articles 6 and 7 – Limits of liability – Directive 90/314/EEC – Package travel, package holidays and package tours – Article 5 – Liability of the organiser of package travel for the proper performance of the package – Cruise – Personal injury sustained by a traveller on board the ship – Limits of compensation under international conventions )

In Case C‑629/24,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Court of Cassation (Court of Cassation, France), made by decision of 15 May 2024, received at the Court on 25 September 2024, in the proceedings

MH

v

Costa Crociere SpA,

Axyme Selàrl, acting as liquidator of the company Blue Passion,

Generali IARD SA, acting as insurer of the company Blue Passion,

Hiscox Insurance Company Ltd,

Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie (CPAM) de Paris,

and

Costa Crociere SpA,

v

DI,

DM, in his own name and in his capacity as an heir of DI,

Croisière Club SAS,

Hiscox Insurance Company Ltd,

Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie (CPAM) du Puy-De-Dôme,

Hiscox SA, as the occupational public liability insurer of Croisière Club SAS,

WT, in his capacity as an heir of DI,

The COURT (Fifth Chamber),

composed of M.L. Arastey Sahún, President of the Chamber, J. Passer, E. Regan, D. Gratsias and B. Smulders (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: R. Norkus,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        MH, by N. Boullez, avocat,

–        Costa Crociere SpA, by G. Valdelièvre, avocat,

–        Hiscox Insurance Company Ltd, by G. Thouvenin, avocat,

–        DM, in his own name and in his capacity as an heir of DI, and WT, in his capacity as an heir of DI, by F. Rocheteau, avocat,

–        Croisière Club SAS and Hiscox SA, as the occupational public liability insurer of Croisière Club SAS, by D. Le Prado, avocat,

–        the French Government, by B. Herbaut and B. Travard, acting as Agents,

–        the European Commission, by S. Delaude, M. Noll-Ehlers and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 4 September 2025,

gives the following

Judgment

1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of 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 (OJ 2009 L 131, p. 24), where a maritime carrier provides a cruise which constitutes package travel within the meaning of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59).

2        The request has been made in two sets of proceedings between, first, one the one hand, MH and, on the other, Costa Crociere SpA, Axyme Selàrl, acting as court-appointed liquidator of the company Blue Passion, Generali IARD SA, as the insurer of the company Blue Passion, Hiscox Insurance Company Ltd and the Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie (CPAM) de Paris (‘the MH case’), and, second, on the one hand, Costa Crociere and, on the other, DI, DM, in his own name and in his capacity as an heir of DI, Croisière Club SAS, Hiscox Insurance Company Ltd, the Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie (CPAM) du Puy-De-Dôme, Hiscox SA, as the occupational public liability insurer of Croisière Club SAS and WT (‘the Costa Crociere case’), following personal injury sustained by MH and DI during cruises on ships operated by Costa Crociere and sold to them as package travel by the travel agencies Blue Passion and Croisière Club.

 Legal context

 European Union law

 Regulation No 392/2009

3        Article 1 of Directive 392/2009, headed ‘Subject matter’, provides as follows:

‘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) as set out in Annex I; …

…’

4        Under Article 2 of that directive, headed ‘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 [Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships (OJ 1998 L 144, p. 1)], 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.’

5        Article 3 of that regulation, headed ‘Liability and insurance’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘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 [International Maritime Organisation (IMO)] Guidelines set out in Annex II.’

6        Article 7 of that directive, headed ‘Information to passengers’, provides:

‘Without prejudice to the obligations of tour operators set out in Council Directive [90/314], the carrier and/or performing carrier shall ensure that passengers are provided with appropriate and comprehensible information regarding their rights under this Regulation.

Where the contract of carriage is made in a Member State, that information shall be provided at all points of sale, including sale by telephone and via the Internet. Where the place of departure is in a Member State, that information shall be provided prior to departure. In all other cases, it shall be provided at the latest on departure. To the extent that the information required under this Article has been provided by either the carrier or the performing carrier, the other shall not be obliged to provide it. The information shall be provided in the most appropriate format.

In order to comply with the information requirement under this Article, the carrier and performing carrier shall provide passengers with at least the information contained in a summary of the provisions of this Regulation prepared by the [European] Commission and made public.’

7        Article 12 of Regulation No 392/2009, headed ‘Entry into force’, provides:

‘This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It 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.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.’

8        Annex I to that regulation, relating to the provisions of the Athens Convention that are relevant for the application of that regulation (‘Annex I’), contains Article 1 thereof, headed ‘Definitions’, which provides:

‘In this Convention the following expressions have the meaning hereby assigned to them:

1.      (a)      “carrier” 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 carrier;

(b)      “performing carrier” means a person other than the carrier, being the owner, charterer or operator of a ship, who actually performs the whole or a part of the carriage; and

(c)      “carrier who actually performs the whole or a part of the carriage” means the performing carrier, or, in so far as the carrier actually performs the carriage, the carrier;

2.      “contract of carriage” means a contract made by or on behalf of a carrier for the carriage by sea of a passenger or of a passenger and his luggage, as the case may be;

…

8.      “carriage” covers the following periods:

(a)      with regard to the passenger and his cabin luggage, the period during which the passenger and/or his cabin luggage are on board the ship or in the course of embarkation or disembarkation, and the period during which the passenger and his cabin luggage are transported by water from land to the ship or vice-versa, if the cost of such transport is included in the fare or if the vessel used for this purpose of auxiliary transport has been put at the disposal of the passenger by the carrier. However, with regard to the passenger, carriage does not include the period during which he is in a marine terminal or station or on a quay or in or on any other port installation;

…

9.      “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;

…’

9        Article 3 of Annex I, headed ‘Liability of the carrier’, provides:

‘1.      For the loss suffered as a result of the death of or personal injury to a passenger caused by a shipping incident, the carrier shall be liable to the extent that such loss in respect of that passenger on each distinct occasion does not exceed 250 000 units of account, unless the carrier proves that the incident:

(a)      resulted from an act of war, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or a natural phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible character; or

(b)      was wholly caused by an act or omission done with the intent to cause the incident by a third party.

If and to the extent that the loss exceeds the above limit, the carrier shall be further liable unless the carrier proves that the incident which caused the loss occurred without the fault or neglect of the carrier.

2.      For the loss suffered as a result of the death of or personal injury to a passenger not caused by a shipping incident, the carrier shall be liable if the incident which caused the loss was due to the fault or neglect of the carrier. The burden of proving fault or neglect shall lie with the claimant.

…

5.      For the purposes of this Article:

(a)      “shipping incident” means shipwreck, capsizing, collision or stranding of the ship, explosion or fire in the ship, or defect in the ship;

(b)      “fault or neglect of the carrier” includes the fault or neglect of the servants of the carrier, acting within the scope of their employment;

(c)      “defect in the ship” means any malfunction, failure or non-compliance with applicable safety regulations in respect of any part of the ship or its equipment when used for the escape, evacuation, embarkation and disembarkation of passengers, or when used for the propulsion, steering, safe navigation, mooring, anchoring, arriving at or leaving berth or anchorage, or damage control after flooding; or when used for the launching of life saving appliances; and

(d)      “loss” shall not include punitive or exemplary damages.

6.      The liability of the carrier under this Article only relates to loss arising from incidents that occurred in the course of the carriage. The burden of proving that the incident which caused the loss occurred in the course of the carriage, and the extent of the loss, shall lie with the claimant.

…’

10      Article 6 of Annex I, headed ‘Contributory fault’, provides:

‘If the carrier proves that the death of or personal injury to a passenger or the loss of or damage to his luggage was caused or contributed to by the fault or neglect of the passenger, the Court seized of the case may exonerate the carrier wholly or partly from his liability in accordance with the provisions of the law of that court.’

11      Article 7 of Annex I, headed ‘Limit of liability for death and personal injury’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘The liability of the carrier for the death of or personal injury to a passenger under Article 3 shall in no case exceed 400 000 units of account per passenger on each distinct occasion. Where, in accordance with the law of the court seized of the case, damages are awarded in the form of periodical income payments, the equivalent capital value of those payments shall not exceed the said limit.’

12      Article 9 of Annex I, headed ‘Unit of Account and conversion’, is worded as follows:

‘1.      The Unit of Account mentioned in this Convention is the Special Drawing Right as defined by the International Monetary Fund. The amounts mentioned in Article 3(1), Article 4bis(1), Article 7(l) and Article 8 shall be converted into the national currency of the State of the court seized of the case on the basis of the value of that currency by reference to the Special Drawing Right on the date of the judgment or the date agreed upon by the parties. The value of the national currency, in terms of the Special Drawing Right, of a State Party which is a member of the International Monetary Fund, shall be calculated in accordance with the method of valuation applied by the International Monetary Fund in effect on the date in question for its operations and transactions. The value of the national currency, in terms of the Special Drawing Right, of a State Party which is not a member of the International Monetary Fund, shall be calculated in a manner determined by that State Party.

2.      Nevertheless, a State which is not a member of the International Monetary Fund and whose law does not permit the application of the provisions of paragraph 1 may, at the time of ratification, acceptance, approval of or accession to this Convention or at any time thereafter, declare that the Unit of Account referred to in paragraph 1 shall be equal to 15 gold francs. The gold franc referred to in this paragraph corresponds to sixty-five and a half milligrams of gold of millesimal fineness nine hundred. The conversion of the gold franc into the national currency shall be made according to the law of the State concerned.

3.      The calculation mentioned in the last sentence of paragraph 1, and the conversion mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be made in such a manner as to express in the national currency of the States Parties, as far as possible, the same real value for the amounts in Article 3(1), Article 4bis(1), Article 7(1) and Article 8 as would result from the application of the first three sentences of paragraph 1. States shall communicate to the Secretary-General the manner of calculation pursuant to paragraph 1, or the result of the conversion in paragraph 2, as the case may be, when depositing an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval of or accession to this Convention and whenever there is a change in either.’

13      Under Article 13 of Annex I, headed ‘Loss of right to limit liability’:

‘1.      The carrier shall not be entitled to the benefit of the limits of liability prescribed in Articles 7 and 8 and Article 10(1), if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier done with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result.

2.      The servant or agent of the carrier or of the performing carrier shall not be entitled to the benefit of those limits if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of that servant or agent done with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result.’

14      Article 14 of that directive, headed ‘Basis for claims’, provides:

‘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.’

 Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010

15      Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (OJ 2010 L 334, p. 1) provides as follows:

‘For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:

…

(t)      “cruise” means a transport service by sea or inland waterway, operated exclusively for the purpose of pleasure or recreation, supplemented by accommodation and other facilities, exceeding two overnight stays on board;

…’

 Directive 90/314

16      The nineteenth recital of Directive 90/314 stated:

‘Whereas in cases where the organizer and/or retailer is liable for failure to perform or improper performance of the services involved in the package, such liability should be limited in accordance with the international conventions governing such services, in particular the Warsaw Convention of 1929 in International Carriage by Air, the Berne Convention of 1961 on Carriage by Rail, the Athens Convention … and the Paris Convention of 1962 on the Liability of Hotel-keepers; whereas, moreover, with regard to damage other than personal injury, it should be possible for liability also to be limited under the package contract provided, however, that such limits are not unreasonable’.

17      Article 1 of that directive provided:

‘The purpose of this Directive is to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to packages sold or offered for sale in the territory of the Community.’

18      Article 2 of that directive stated:

‘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.

…’

19      Under Article 5 of that directive

‘1.      Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that the organizer and/or retailer party 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 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 organizer and/or retailer or the supplier of services, even with all due care, could not foresee or forestall.

In the cases referred to in the second and third indents, the organizer and/or retailer party to the contract shall be required to give prompt assistance to a consumer in difficulty.

In the matter of damages arising from the non-performance or 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 non-performance or 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.

3.      Without prejudice to the fourth subparagraph of paragraph 2, there may be no exclusion by means of a contractual clause from the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2.

…’

 French law

20      The code du tourisme (Tourism Code) transposes Directive 90/314 into French law. Article L. 211-1 of that code, in the version applicable to the disputes in the main proceedings (‘the Tourism Code’), provides:

‘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:

(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;

…’

21      Article L. 211-2 of the Tourism Code provides:

‘The following constitute a tourism package:

1.      services 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.      services covering a period of more than twenty-four hours or including overnight accommodation;

3.      services sold or offered for sale at an inclusive price.’

22      Under Article L. 211-16 of the Tourism Code:

‘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.’

 The disputes in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

 The MH case

23      On 18 January 2017, MH booked a cruise through the travel agency Blue Passion for an amount of EUR 12 038. That cruise was to start in Valparaiso (Chile) and end in Melbourne (Australia) and was to be provided on a ship belonging to Costa Crociere between 15 February and 17 March 2017. During the night of 17 to 18 February 2017, MH got out of bed without turning on the light, fell, and fractured the head of her humerus. She was subsequently repatriated to mainland France for treatment.

24      In July 2017, MH brought an action for damages against Blue Passion and Costa Crociere before the tribunal de grande instance de Paris (Regional Court, Paris, France). Hiscox Insurance, in its capacity as insurer of those companies, voluntarily joined those proceedings.

25      By judgment of 24 October 2019, that court held Blue Passion and Costa Crociere liable for 20% of the harm suffered by MH as a result of her fall, since she was partly responsible for the fall given that she had failed to turn on the light before the accident occurred. In addition, pursuant to Article L. 211-2 et seq. of the Tourism Code, that court ordered Blue Passion and Costa Crociere jointly and severally with Hiscox Insurance to pay compensation for the damage suffered by MH in the amount of EUR 2 041.53.

26      By judgment of 22 September 2020, Blue Passion was put into judicial liquidation.

27      Costa Crociere brought an appeal against the judgment of 24 October 2019 before the cour d’appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris, France) which, in its judgment of 17 November 2022, held that MH was solely responsible for her accident because she had failed to turn on the light in her bedroom before she fell, with the result that Blue Passion could not be regarded as liable for improper performance of the contract under Article L. 211-1 et seq. of the Tourism Code. Furthermore, that court held that Costa Crociere could not be held liable for that accident under Regulation No 392/2009 and the Athens Convention either, since no mention had been made of movements of the cruise ship or failures by Costa Crociere that could have given rise to the fall in question. Consequently, the cour d’appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris) set aside that judgment.

28      MH brought an appeal against that judgment before the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France), which is the referring court, arguing that the cour d’appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris) had incorrectly failed to apply Article L. 211-2 and L. 211-16 of the Tourism Code and had erred in so far as it applied the provisions of Regulation No 392/2009 and the Athens Convention.

 The Costa Crociere case

29      On 11 February 2016, DM purchased a holiday in the form of package travel from the travel agency Croisière Club for himself and his wife, DI, for the price of EUR 1 782. That holiday consisted of a cruise around the Greek islands departing from Marseille (France) with five stops along the way aboard a ship belonging to Costa Crociere which was to take place between 30 March and 11 April 2016.

30      On 30 March 2016, DI fell and fractured her left humeral head after being struck by an unidentified person while she was trying to serve herself at the buffet on board the ship, which was still docked in the port of Marseille.

31      DM and DI, who did not travel on the cruise as a result of the accident, brought an action for damages against Costa Crociere and Croisière Club before the tribunal judiciaire de Nanterre (Court of Nanterre, France). Hiscox Insurance, in its capacity as insurer of Croisière Club, voluntarily joined the proceedings.

32      On 22 October 2020, that court found Costa Crociere and Croisière Club liable and ordered them, together with Hiscox Insurance, to pay various amounts to DI and DM by way of compensation for the harm caused. Costa Crociere, Croisière Club and Hiscox Insurance brought an appeal against that judgment before the cour d’appel de Versailles (Court of Appeal, Versailles, France).

33      By judgment of 14 February 2023, that court upheld that judgment in application of Article L. 211-1 et seq. of the Tourism Code.

34      Costa Crociere brought an appeal against that judgment before the referring court, arguing that the cour d’appel de Versailles (Court of Appeal, Versailles) had incorrectly failed to apply Regulation No 392/2009 and the Athens Convention and had erred in so far as it had held Costa Crociere liable for the harm suffered by DM and DI in application of Article L. 211-1 et seq. of the Tourism Code.

 Considerations applicable to both cases in the main proceedings

35      The referring court notes that the cour d’appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris), the cour d’appel de Versailles (Court of Appeal, Versailles) and some legal academics are divided on whether Regulation No 392/2009 is applicable to cruises which have the characteristics of a tourism package for the purpose of Directive 90/314.

36      The liability of organisers of ocean cruises sold as package travel may come under the liability regime established by Directive 90/314. Regulation No 392/2009 does not provide for any derogation from the uniform rules stipulating that the organiser or retailer will automatically be liable which are established by that directive. In addition, that directive seeks to ensure better consumer protection. That regulation concerns only contracts relating to the maritime transport of passengers, and the reference in Article 7 of that regulation to Directive 90/314 is limited solely to the obligations of tour operators relating to the provision of information to passengers and does not in any way relate to the liability regime laid down by that directive.

37      Furthermore, the liability of the organiser of ocean cruises sold in the form of package travel could be covered by the liability regime laid down by Regulation No 392/2009, since, first, Article 14 of the Athens Convention, to which Article 3 of that regulation refers, 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, is to be brought against a carrier or performing carrier otherwise than in accordance with that convention, second, no provision of that regulation excluded the cruise from its scope, and, third, Article 7 of that regulation refers to Directive 90/314.

38      Moreover, some legal academics 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 come within the scope of the Athens Convention, or to a tourist service provided in connection with that carriage, coming within the scope of Directive 90/314.

39      In those circumstances, the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)      Must Article 2, Article 3(1) and the first paragraph of Article 7 of Regulation [No 392/2009], and Annex I thereto, be interpreted as governing the liability of a maritime carrier operating a cruise having the characteristics of a [tourism package for the purpose] of [Directive 90/314]?

(2)      If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, do those provisions of [Regulation No 392/2009] govern the liability of that operator only where the personal injury relates to carriage by sea?’

 Consideration of the questions referred

40      As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that, according to settled case-law, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to decide the case before it. To that end, the Court should, where necessary, reformulate the questions referred to it (judgment of 18 December 2025, SACD and Others, C‑182/24, EU:C:2025:979, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited).

41      In the present case, it is clear from its two complementary questions that the referring court is uncertain what rules are applicable with regard to liability where a passenger of a cruise ship sustains personal injury on board that ship, since a cruise can be classified both as package travel, within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 90/314, and as carriage by sea, referred to in Article 2 of Regulation No 392/2009, and given that Article 5 of that directive and Article 3 of that regulation, read in conjunction with Annex I thereto, lay down different liability regimes.

42      It follows that, by its two questions, which should be examined together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 3(1) and the first paragraph of Article 7 of and Annex I to Regulation No 392/2009, and Article 5 of Directive 90/314 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a cruise has the characteristics of a tourism package for the purpose of Article 2(1) of that directive, actions for damages relating to personal injury sustained by a passenger on board the cruise ship during carriage by sea, within the meaning of Article 2 of that regulation, are to be governed by the liability regime of the maritime carrier providing the cruise with that ship, as laid down in that regulation.

43      In that regard, the Court notes that, under Article 1 of Directive 90/314, the purpose of that directive is to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to packages sold or offered for sale in the territory of the European Union. As is clear from Article 2 of Directive 90/314, the contracts covered by that directive are contracts concluded between a consumer, on the one hand, and an organiser or retailer, on the other, which concern a package consisting in the sale at an inclusive price of a service that covers a period of more than 24 hours or includes overnight accommodation, which combines not fewer than two of the three following components: transport, accommodation and other tourist services not ancillary to transport or accommodation and accounting for a significant proportion of the package.

44      It follows that where a cruise – defined by Article 3(t) of Regulation No 1177/2010 as a transport service by sea or inland waterway, operated exclusively for the purpose of pleasure or recreation, supplemented by accommodation and other tourist facilities, exceeding two overnight stays on board – is sold at an inclusive price to a consumer, that sale must be regarded as being a package within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 90/314 and must therefore be governed by that directive.

45      In that regard, the Court finds that, in order to achieve the approximation referred to in Article 1 thereof, Directive 90/314 establishes a binding regime of contractual liability of package travel organisers to consumers who have concluded a contract with them for such travel. Article 5(1) of Directive 90/314 provides that Member States are to take the necessary steps to ensure that the organiser and/or retailer party to the contract is liable to the consumer for the proper performance of the obligations arising from that contract, irrespective of whether such obligations are to be performed by that organiser and/or retailer or by other suppliers of services. The first subparagraph of Article 5(2) of that directive provides that Member States are to take the necessary steps to ensure that the organiser and/or retailer party to the contract is liable for the damage resulting for the consumer from the failure to perform or the improper performance of the contract (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 March 2021, Kuoni Travel, C‑578/19, EU:C:2021:213, paragraphs 34 and 35).

46      However, that liability of the organiser and/or retailer to the consumer is not unlimited.

47      Under the first subparagraph of Article 5(2) of Directive 90/314, the organiser and/or retailer are not to be liable for failures in the performance of the contract if they are attributable to the consumer, are attributable to a third party unconnected with the provision of the services contracted for, which are unforeseeable or unavoidable, or are due to a case of force majeure or an event which the organiser could not foresee or forestall.

48      In addition, it is apparent from the third subparagraph of Article 5(2) of Directive 90/314, read in conjunction with the nineteenth recital thereof, that Member States may allow the consumer’s compensation for non-performance or improper performance of the services involved in the package to be limited in accordance with the international conventions governing such services, which include the Athens Convention.

49      As regards the latter limitation to a consumer’s compensation, the Court notes, in the first place, that that limitation applies to any ‘carrier’, defined in Article 1(1) of that convention as meaning 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 carrier, that is to say a person other than the carrier who actually performs the whole or a part of the carriage.

50      In the second place, the Court notes that that convention limits the compensation which a passenger or his or her successors in title may claim from a carrier in cases of personal injury or death occurring in the course of carriage by sea.

51      In particular, Article 3 of that convention provides for different liability regimes for the carrier depending on whether or not a shipping incident – which is defined by that article as the shipwreck, capsizing, collision or stranding of the ship, explosion or fire in the ship, or defect in the ship – is the cause of the death or personal injury of the passenger.

52      Thus, in the event of loss suffered as a result of the death of or personal injury to a passenger caused by such a shipping incident, Article 3(1) of that convention provides that the carrier is to be liable where such loss in respect of that passenger on each distinct occasion does not exceed 250 000 units of account, which, according to Article 9 of Annex I, are Special Drawing Rights defined by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). If the loss suffered by the passenger does not exceed that limit of 250 000 units of account, the carrier may be exempted from liability only by proving that the shipping incident resulted from an act of war, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or a natural phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible character or was wholly caused by an act or omission done with the intent to cause the incident by a third party. If the loss suffered by the passenger exceeds that limit of 250 000 units of account, the carrier is to remain liable unless it proves that the shipping incident occurred without the fault or neglect of the carrier.

53      By contrast, for the loss suffered as a result of the death or personal injury to a passenger which is not caused by a shipping incident, Article 3(2) and (5) of the Athens Convention provides that the carrier is to be liable only if it is demonstrated, by the person seeking compensation, that the incident which caused the loss was due to the fault or neglect of the carrier or of the servants of the carrier, acting within the scope of their employment.

54      Moreover, Article 6 and Article 7(1) of that convention limit the liability of the carrier for the death or personal injury of the passenger irrespective of whether or not that death or injury is caused by a shipping incident. Under Article 6, the court seized may exonerate the carrier wholly or partly from his liability if the carrier proves that the death of or personal injury to the passenger was caused or contributed to by the fault or neglect of the passenger. In addition, in application of Article 7(1), the liability of the carrier for the death of or personal injury to a passenger is in no case to exceed 400 000 units of account per passenger on each distinct occasion. Article 13(1) of that convention provides, however, that the carrier is not to be entitled to the benefit of the limits of liability prescribed in Article 7(1) if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier done with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result.

55      In the third place, while the third subparagraph of Article 5(2) of Directive 90/314 provides only for the possibility for Member States to limit, in accordance with international conventions, consumer’s compensation in respect of damage arising from the non-performance or improper performance of the services involved in the package, the limits of the carrier’s liability laid down in the Athens Convention and referred to in paragraphs 48 to 54 of the present judgment are binding on all the Member States from 31 December 2012 at the latest.

56      As provided for in Article 1(1) of Regulation No 392/2009, that regulation establishes an EU regime relating to liability applicable to the carriage of passengers by sea based on the relevant provisions of the Athens Convention, which are set out in Annex I to that regulation. Article 3(1) of that regulation states, in that regard, that that system of liability is to be governed by Articles 1 and 1bis, Article 2(2), Articles 3 to 16 and Articles 18, 20 and 21 of the Athens Convention, the text of which is set out in Annex I to that regulation. Furthermore, the second paragraph of Article 12 of Regulation No 392/2009 provides that that regulation is to apply from no later than 31 December 2012.

57      Furthermore, where a carrier is supplying services to an organiser of a cruise which has been sold to a consumer as package travel, that organiser, who may be held liable to the consumer, in application of Article 5 of Directive 90/314, for any non-performance or improper performance of the carriage by sea by that carrier, must, having regard to the end of Article 5(1) and the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 thereof, read in the light of the nineteenth recital of that directive, also be entitled to the benefit of the limitations on compensation to which a carrier is entitled vis-à-vis a passenger under the Athens Convention where that convention applies to such carriage.

58      It follows that, from no later than 31 December 2012, the Member States no longer have the option of limiting freely the organiser’s liability for the carriage by sea of passengers, given the limits of the liability of a carrier in charge of such carriage laid down by the Athens Convention, but are required to limit that liability of the organiser in line with that convention. Accordingly, the limits of the carrier’s liability, as provided for in that convention and referred to in paragraphs 48 to 54 of the present judgment, apply to a consumer’s compensation from an organiser, following damage due to the non-performance or improper performance of services during a cruise which was sold to that consumer in the form of a package.

59      However, it is to be noted that that cruise comes within the scope of Regulation No 392/2009. In that regard, the Court observes that, according to Article 2 of that regulation, it is to apply, inter alia, to any international carriage – which is defined in Article 1(9) of the Athens Convention as 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 – where the ship is flying the flag of or is registered in a Member State, the contract of carriage has been made in a Member State, or the place of departure or destination, according to the contract of carriage, is in a Member State.

60      Furthermore, Article 3(6) of the Athens Convention, which is applicable pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation No 392/2009, provides that the carrier liability regime provided for in that convention relates only to loss arising from incidents that occurred in the course of the carriage. Carriage is defined in point 8(a) of Article 1 of that convention, which is also applicable pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation No 392/2009, as being the period during which the passenger is on board the ship or in the course of embarkation or disembarkation, and the period during which the passenger is transported by water from land to the ship or vice-versa, if the cost of such transport is included in the fare or if the vessel used for this purpose of auxiliary transport has been put at the disposal of the passenger by the carrier, but excludes the period during which the passenger is in a marine terminal or station or on a quay or in or on any other port installation.

61      It follows that any claim for compensation on account of the death of a passenger or personal injury sustained by him or her during his or her carriage by sea is covered by the liability regime laid down by the Athens Convention. Since the carriage of a passenger is defined by that convention as the period during which the passenger is on board a ship, determining which liability regime applies in the event of death or personal injury on board a ship cannot depend on the answer to the question whether that death or personal injury is due to non-performance or improper performance of the carriage services rather than being due to non-performance or improper performance of the on-board accommodation or recreation services. With regard to any non-performance or improper performance of the services on board a cruise ship in the course of carriage which has caused the death or personal injury of a passenger, the organiser may rely on the limitations of liability to the passenger provided for in the Athens Convention which the carrier may invoke, without there being any need to distinguish between services relating to carriage, on-board accommodation or on-board recreation.

62      Furthermore, since Article 7 of Regulation No 392/2009 provides that, without prejudice to the obligations of tour operators as regards the information specified in Directive 90/314, passengers are to receive from the carrier relevant and comprehensible information regarding their rights under that regulation, as a minimum in the form of a summary of the provisions of that regulation, the Court holds that the passengers of a cruise ship must be informed of the liability regime applicable in the event of death or personal injury caused on board that ship.

63      In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that, where, as in the present case, a consumer who has purchased a package to take a cruise that comes under Article 2(1) of Directive 90/314 sustains personal injury during the period in which he or she is on board the cruise ship and takes the view that that injury is due to non-performance or improper performance of the package contract, he or she has the choice of bringing two types of actions for damages.

64      First, in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 90/314, that consumer may bring an action for damages against the organiser of that cruise in order to obtain compensation.

65      However, against such a claim for compensation, the organiser may rely on the limits of compensation to the passenger provided for in Articles 3 and 7 of the Athens Convention, which are binding on the Member States pursuant to the combined application of Article 3 of Regulation No 392/2009 and the third subparagraph of Article 5(2) of Directive 90/314, as set out in paragraphs 55 to 58 of the present judgment, and which, in the event of death or personal injury, go beyond the limits of the first subparagraph of Article 5(2) of that directive.

66      In the present case, it is for the referring court to assess whether or not, in the MH case and the Costa Crociere case, the personal injury caused to MH and DI on board the cruise ships is due to a shipping incident, within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the Athens Convention, and, in the event that they are not due to such an incident, whether MH and DI have shown that the incident which caused their loss was due to the fault or neglect of the carrier or of the servants of the carrier acting within the scope of their employment.

67      Second, the consumer referred to in paragraph 63 of the present judgment may bring an action for damages on the basis of Regulation No 392/2009 and the Athens Convention directly against the carrier that actually carried out the carriage by sea, even where the latter is not the organiser of the cruise.

68      Since Article 14 of the Athens Convention, which is applicable to Member States pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation No 392/2009, provides that no action for damages against the carrier for, inter alia, personal injury is to be brought otherwise than in accordance with that convention, the carrier may rely on the limitations of its liability provided for in Articles 3 and 7 of that convention.

69      In so far as a passenger participating in a cruise brings each of those actions for damages, the compensation obtained as a result of one of those actions must be taken into account when assessing the compensation sought in the context of the other action in order to prevent the passenger from obtaining, by means of those actions for damages, compensation greater than that corresponding to the loss suffered.

70      In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions raised is that Article 3(1) and the first paragraph of Article 7 of and Annex I to Regulation No 392/2009, and Article 5 of Directive 90/314 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a cruise has the characteristics of a tourism package for the purpose of Article 2(1) of that directive, actions for damages relating to personal injury sustained by a passenger on board the cruise ship during carriage by sea, within the meaning of Article 2 of that regulation, are to be governed by the liability regime of the maritime carrier providing the cruise with that ship, as laid down in that regulation.

 Costs

71      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 3(1) and the first paragraph of Article 7 of and Annex I to 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 Article 5 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours

must be interpreted as meaning that, where a cruise has the characteristics of a tourism package for the purpose of Article 2(1) of that directive, actions for damages relating to personal injury sustained by a passenger on board the cruise ship during carriage by sea, within the meaning of Article 2 of that regulation, are to be governed by the liability regime of the maritime carrier providing the cruise with that ship, as laid down in that regulation.

[Signatures]

*      Language of the case: French.