On October 18, 2013, Canada and the European Union (EU) signed the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).
On October 18, 2013, Canada and the European Union (EU) signed the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). For the moment, this is an agreement in principle that has not yet been ratified or implemented by the two parties (federal and provincial governments, as well as the 28 EU countries) to return in force. This...
This target should be reached by 2015.
However, most of the major problems, set out below, have been resolved.
I. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CALENDARSTOPN ° 10/00341 (22/06/2012)
SA LA COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCES ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS THE SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERA
VS/
COUR D’APPEL DE FORT DE FRANCE , CHAMBRE CIVILE, ARRÊT DU 22 JUIN 2012
Decision referred to the court: Judgment of the High Court of Fort de France, dated September 08
2009, registered under number 08/00114.
CALLERS:
SA LA COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCES ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS, prise en la personne de son représentant légal Carrera 13 A - N ° 29-24 y 29-26 Piso 17 Ala Sur Santafé de Bogoà COLOMBIA represented by Me Alain MANVILLE, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE
SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS, Company in liquidation Callée 2 N ° 67 Hangar 72 Medelin COLOMBIA represented by Me Alain MANVILLE, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE Master FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERA, es quality of liquidating agent of the company WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS Bogota Calle 70 A, N ° 6-24, Piso 2 COLOMBIA represented by Me Alain MANVILLE, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE INTIMES: Madame T. Yolande L. wife B. 45 Morne Laurent T. C / 0 M. Omer L. represented by Me André ELOIDIN, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE Mrs. Marie Louise Christiane L. 45 Morne Laurent T. C / 0 M. Omer L. represented by Me André ELOIDIN, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE Mrs Thérèse Rose d. L. 45 Morne Laurent T. C / 0 M. Omer L. represented by Me André ELOIDIN, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE Mrs Raymonde Fernande L. wife H. Cité Lacroix represented by Me André ELOIDIN, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE Mr. Honoré Cyr André L. Habitation Bois Carré represented by Me André ELOIDIN, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE Mr. Casimir Simplice L. represented by Me André ELOIDIN, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE Mr. Thérèse Carnot L. Osman Street N. Ravine Vilaine represented by Me André ELOIDIN, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE
COMPOSITION OF THE COURT:
L’affaire a été débattue le 27 avril 2012 en audience publique, devant la cour composée de : Mme TRIOL, Conseillère, présidente d’audience Ms SUBIETA FORONDA, Advisor M. CHEVRIER, Advisor qui en ont délibéré, les parties ayant été avisées de la date du prononcé de l’arrêt fixée au 22 JUIN 2012. REGISTRAR: during the debates, Mrs. SOUNDOROM,
STOPPED: Contradictory, Prononcé publiquement par mise à disposition au greffe de la cour, les parties en ayant été préalablement avisées dans les conditions prévues au deuxième alinéa de l’article 450 du code de procédure civile.
PRESENTATION OF THE LITIGATION:
On August 16, 2005, an aircraft of the Colombian company WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS, ensuring a flight between the
Panama et la Martinique s’est écrasé dans le nord ouest du Vénézuela. Mme Lucienne C. et sa fille, Célyne L., se
were among the passengers on this plane.
La WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS, aujourd’hui en liquidation, est représentée par Maître Felipe NEGRET
MOSQUETO, liquidateur judiciaire. A l’époque des faits, elle était assurée, pour sa responsabilité civile, auprès de la
compagnie d’assurances ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS.
By judgment of September 1, 2005, the High Court of Fort de France declared Mrs. Lucienne C. and
Mrs. Célyne L. deceased.
By contradictory judgment of September 8, 2009, the same court gave notice to Me Felipe NEGRET MOSQUETO
de son intervention volontaire, condamné la compagnie d’assurances ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS à payer à
Ms. TL wife B., Ms. Marie Louise L. wife F., Ms. Thérèse L., Ms. Raymonde L. wife H., Mr. Honoré L.,
M. Casimir L. and M. Thérèse Carnot L., each, the sum of 5,000.00 euros, in respect of non-pecuniary damage resulting from the
décès de leur belle s’ur et celle de 8 000,00 euros, au titre du même préjudice du fait du décès de leur nièce, déclaré le
judgment opposable to Me FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERA, the qualities of liquidating agent of WEST
CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS, ordonné l’exécution provisoire pour le tout, condamné la compagnie d’assurances à verser la
somme de 3 000,00 euros, en application des dispositions de l’article 700 du code de procédure civile.
Par déclaration enregistrée au greffe le 31 mai 2010, la compagnie d’assurances ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS,
WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS and Master FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERA, the qualities of liquidating agent of
the airline, have noted appeal from this judgment in all its provisions.
Cette déclaration d’appel a été signifiée, le 29 septembre 2010, à Mme T. L. épouse B., Mme Marie Louise L. épouse
F., Mme Thérèse L., Mme Raymonde L. wife H., M. Honoré L., M. Casimir L. and M. Thérèse Carnot L ..
Par conclusions déposées au greffe le 31 mars 2011, les appelants ont demandé à la cour l’infirmation du jugement
déféré, en l’absence de démonstration de liens d’affection spécifiques entre les intimées et les défunts.
A titre subsidiaire, ils ont réclamé le débouté de l’appel incident des intimés.
Au soutien de leurs prétentions, ils exposent que l’indemnisation du préjudice moral vise à compenser la peine
éprouvée pour la perte d’un être proche, abstraction faite du contexte où elle se produit, et qu’il n’existe aucune
présomption de préjudice moral réparable s’agissant des beaux frères, belles soeurs, oncles et tantes. Ils affirment que
les intimés doivent démontrer les liens d’affection spécifiques les liant aux victimes et que le lien de parenté ou
d’alliance ne suffit pas à établir la réalité de liens d’affection susceptibles d’être indemnisés.
S’agissant de l’appel incident, ils soulignent que la demande d’augmentation de la somme allouée à chacun des
intimés n’est pas justifiée.
Par conclusions déposées au greffe le 12 janvier 2011, Mme T. L. épouse B., Mme Marie Louise L. épouse F., Mme Thérèse L., Mme Raymonde L. épouse H., M. Honoré L., M. Casimir L. et M. Thérèse Carnot L. ont demandé à la cour l’infirmation partielle du jugement et la condamnation des appelants à leur verser, à chacun, la somme de 10 000,00 euros, au titre du préjudice moral du fait du décès de leur belle soeur et celle de 15 000,00 euros, au titre du même préjudice du fait du décès de leur nièce, outre leur condamnation à leur verser, ensemble, la somme de 7 000,00 euros, en application des dispositions de l’article 700 du code de procédure civile.
A l’appui de leurs prétentions, ils exposent que la catastrophe aérienne a ébranlé toute la Martinique et a constitué un
major air accident. They recall having justified the very strong emotional bond that existed between them and the deceased bringing
the court found indisputable
le lien de parenté et d’affection.
L’ordonnance de clôture est intervenue le 10 novembre 2011.
MOTIFS DE L’ARRÊT :
Sur l’indemnisation du préjudice moral :
Il est admis que le préjudice moral de l’ayant droit consiste tant dans le choc psychologique et affectif résultant du
décès d’un proche, que dans les pertes affectives et d’assistance liées à l’absence de la personne défunte.
Comme l’ont justement rappelé les premiers juges, le traumatisme lié aux circonstances particulières de l’accident
in its dimension of collective catastrophe cannot give rise to specific reparation but constitutes one of the
composantes du préjudice moral, la douleur pouvant être d’autant plus vive que les circonstances du décès sont
painful.
En l’espèce, les intimés prétendent à une juste indemnisation au regard de leur préjudice considéré dans tous ses
aspects, including the moral suffering related to the circumstances of the plane crash.
They thus demonstrated both their particular pain due to the brutal and violent circumstances of the death of their
parentes, que les liens d’affection profonde et de proximité qui les unissaient.
Au vu de l’ensemble des pièces produites aux débats, la cour considère que le jugement déféré a justement évalué le
prejudice of the respondents and must receive confirmation.
Sur les dispositions de l’article 700 du code de procédure civile :
L’équité justifie la condamnation de la compagnie d’assurances ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS au paiement aux
respondents together for the sum of 7,000.00 euros.
La même compagnie d’assurance supportera les dépens.
FOR THESE REASONS :
Confirm the judgment undertaken in all its provisions,
Condamne la compagnie d’assurances ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS à payer à Mme T. L. épouse B., Mme Marie
Louise L. marries F., Mme Thérèse L., Mme Raymonde L. marries H., M. Honoré L., M. Casimir L. and M. Thérèse
Carnot L., ensemble, la somme de 7 000,00 euros, sur le fondement des dispositions de l’article 700 du code de
Civil Procedure ;
Condamne la compagnie d’assurances ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS aux dépens.
Signed by Mrs. TRIOL, President, and Mrs. SOUNDOROM, Registrar, during the delivery, to which the minute has been postponed.
THE REGISTRAR, THE PRESIDENT,
Composition of the court: Mme TRIOL, Alain MANVILLE, Me André ELOIDIN Contested decision: TGI Fort-de-France, Fort-de-France 2009-09-08
***
II. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CIVIL, JUDGMENT N ° 10/00341 (12/22/2012)
LA COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCES ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS SA FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERO
VS/
R.
L.
COUR D’APPEL DE FORT DE FRANCE CIVIL ROOM
Decision referred to the court: Judgment of the High Court of Fort de France, dated November 17
2009, registered under number 09/1871
CALLERS:
LA COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCES ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS, prise en sa qualité d’assureur de la Compagnie WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS, prise en la personne de son représentant légal Carera 13 AN ° 29-24 Piso 17 Ala Sur Bogota fairy bogota (colombia) represented by Me Alain MANVILLE of SELARL AMCOR JURISTE & ASSOCIES, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE
SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS SA, company in liquidation. Calle 2, n ° 87-15 Hangar 72 MEDILLIN COLOMBIA represented by Me Alain MANVILLE of SELARL AMCOR JURISTE & ASSOCIES, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE Master FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERO Calle 70 AN ° 6-24 Piso 2 BOGOTA COLOMBIA represented by Me Alain MANVILLE of SELARL AMCOR JURISTE & ASSOCIES, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE
RESPONDENTS:
Mrs. R. Irma R. divorced L. represented by Me Alberte ROTSEN MEYZINDI of SELARL MATHURIN BELIA & ROTSEN MEYZINDI, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE Madame Ketty L. marries E. 4 cour du Moulin represented by Alberte ROTSEN MEYZINDI of SELARL MATHURIN BELIA & ROTSEN MEYZINDI, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE
COMPOSITION OF THE COURT:
Les parties ont été autorisées à déposer leur dossier le 12 octobre 2012 conformément aux dispositions de l’article 779 alinéa 3 du code de procédure civile et informées en application de l’article 786-1 du même code du nom des magistrats amenés à délibérer soit : President: Ms. DERYCKERE, Advisor Assessor: Ms SUBIETA FORONDA, Advisor Assessor: Ms TRIOL, Advisor
et de la date du prononcé de l’arrêt fixée au 14 DECEMBRE 2012 Registrar: during the debates, Ms SOUNDOROM,
JUDGMENT: contradictory,
pronounced publicly, by making available to the court registry, the parties having been previously notified
dans les conditions prévues au deuxième alinéa de l’article 450 du code de procédure civile;
FACTS, PROCEDURE, MEANS AND CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES
By judgment of September 30, 2008, rectified on November 19, 2009, the High Court of Fort de France
condamné la compagnie d’assurance ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS à payer en réparation du préjudice subi du
fait du décès de M. G. LAURENT et de son fils Johan L., dans l’accident d’avion survenu le 16 août 2005 au Venezuela,
sums for various loss items, including:
- to Mrs. RR € 5,000 for the personal hereditary damage suffered by her son Johan L.,
- to Mrs. Ketty L. € 15,000 in compensation for the hereditary damage suffered by her brother Johan L., and € 20,000 suffered by her
father G. LAURENT.
L’assureur, et Me Felipe NEGRET MOSQUERA en qualité de liquidateur de la SA WEST CARIBEAN AIRWAYS ont
by declaration of 30 September 2010, appealed from the judgment, only of these convictions pronounced in
title of hereditary harm.
Par dernières conclusions en date du 23 mai 2012, les appelants font valoir que ce préjudice n’a pas pu entrer dans le
patrimoine du défunt, transmis aux ayants droit puisqu’il n’est qu’hypothétique et donc non réparable. Ils ajoutent que
l’accident ayant entrainé une mort instantanée, le préjudice moral du défunt ne peut être retenu. Subsidiairement, ils font
observer que le préjudice successoral a été évalué forfaitairement à 20 000 € mais qu’un autre jugement rendu du chef
de la disparition de M. G. LAURENT retient l’existence de 4 héritiers, l’unique demandeur parmi eux obtenant dès lors
€ 5,000, which contradicts the situation of Mrs. Ketty L. receiving € 20,000 from her
side as the sole heiress of the same G. LAURENT.
Aux termes de leurs dernières conclusions du 7 février 2012, les intimées, Mme R. R. et Mme Ketty L., demandent à la cour de confirmer le jugement en toutes ses dispositions et de leur allouer une indemnité de 3 000 € au titre de l’article 700 du code de procédure civile. Sur le principe de l’indemnisation d’un préjudice héréditaire de souffrance dans ce cas, elles font valoir qu’il est incontestable que dans le courant d’un crash d’avion, les passagers ont ressenti l’imminence de leur mort avec le sentiment de panique et d’impuissance, et la conscience de quitter la vie avant son terme. Ce préjudice moral étant né avant le décès, le droit personnel à réparation est entré dans le patrimoine de la victime et s’est transmis à ses héritiers. En ce qui concerne le quantum, elles font valoir que leur qualité d’héritières est attestée par un certificat d’hérédité qui n’a pas été contesté, et que le jugement faisant état de 4 autres héritiers de M. G. LAURENT ne leur ayant pas été communiqué, il ne leur est pas opposable.
REASONS
On hereditary harm:
Toute victime d’un dommage a le droit d’en obtenir réparation de celui qui l’a causé. Ce droit patrimonial est
transmissible to his heirs. The reparable damage must be direct and certain, in relation to the harmful event.
En l’espèce, contrairement à ce qu’affirment les appelants, la chute de l’avion est un fait constant indiscutable, qui
n’aurait pas dû arriver dans des circonstances normales de vol. Il convient donc de prendre en compte l’ensemble des
circonstances de l’accident, depuis le décrochage aérien, emportant perte brutale d’altitude et dépressurisation de la
cabine, jusqu’à l’impact final. Par conséquent, il ne peut être argué d’un décès instantané des passagers, qui ne
would ignore the few minutes during which they were necessarily confronted with the terror of
vertige de la chute, ainsi qu’à l’angoisse puis la certitude de leur mort inexorable, générateurs de souffrances à tout le
moins morales, qui ne sauraient être qualifiées d’hypothétiques.
The court considers that the court made a fair assessment of the quantum of this liquidated damage in the sum of 20,000 €
.
On the applicants' estate vocation:
Il convient d’observer que la vocation successorale et la part respective de Mme R. et Mme L. à l’égard de la somme
allouée du chef de Johan L., leur fils et frère décédé sans enfant, n’est pas contestée à titre subsidiaire par les
appelants. Une fois les moyens rejetés quant au principe de l’indemnisation de ce préjudice, il convient de confirmer le
judgment on this count.
Les appelants ne font de demandes subsidiaires que concernant l’assiette de la vocation successorale de Mme Ketty
L., qui selon eux ne serait pas la seule enfant du défunt G. LAURENT. Il leur appartient d’apporter à la juridiction les
evidence on which they base their claim. The declaratory judgment of death of MG LAURENT was
established at the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office for Mrs. R., Mrs. Ketty L., Mrs. LC, Mr. Jean M., Mrs. Mr. wife
C., Mlle Karina M., Mme Michaëlla C., et Miguèle L.. Mme Ketty L. de son côté produit un certificat d’hérédité la
concerning vis-à-vis his father. In the absence of any other details relating to the relationship between these
third parties in this file, allowing their inheritance vocation and the judgment invoked by the
appelants, qui ne figure pas à leurs pièces, et qui en tout état de cause, n’a jamais été notifié ni même communiqué à
Ms. Ketty L. in the context of this procedure, despite the latter's request in its last
conclusions, la cour ne dispose d’aucun élément permettant de constater la prétendue contrariété entre les deux
decisions and to reform the judgment presently referred to the court.
Les appelants conserveront la charge des dépens d’appel. Et l’équité commande de les condamner à payer aux
intimées une indemnité de 1 500 € sur le fondement des dispositions de l’article 700 du code de procédure civile.
FOR THESE REASONS
The court, ruling within the limits of its referral; Confirm the judgment referred;
Orders the appellants to pay Ms. R. and Ms. Ketty L. the lump sum of € 1,500, on the basis of
articles 700 of the code of civil procedure,;
Condamne les appelants aux dépens d’appel ;
Authorizes SELARL MATHURIN BELLIA & ROTSEN
– MEYSENDI à recouvrer directement ceux des dépens dont elle aurait fait l’avance sans en avoir reçu provision.
Signed by Mrs. DERYCKERE, president, and Mrs. SOUNDOROM clerk, during the delivery at which the minute was
discount.
THE REGISTRAR, THE PRESIDENT,
Composition of the jurisdiction: Ms DERYCKERE, JURISTE & Associés, SELARL Amcor, Alain MANVILLE, SELARL Mathurin Belia & ROTSEN MEYZINDI, Alberte ROTSEN MEYZINDI, Me Alberte ROTSEN MEYZINDI Contested decision: TGI Fort-de-France, Fort-de-France 2009 11-17
***
III. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CIVIL, JUDGMENT N ° 10/00643 (22/12/2012)
LA COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCES ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS SA FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERO
VS/
B.
B.
COUR D’APPEL DE FORT DE FRANCE CIVIL ROOM
JUDGMENT OF DECEMBER 14, 2012
Decision referred to the court: Judgment of the High Court of Fort de France, dated September 30
2008, registered under number 07/118.
CALLERS:
LA COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCES ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS, prise en sa qualité d’assureur de la Compagnie WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS, prise en la personne de son représentant légal Carera 13 AN ° 29-24 Piso 17 Ala Sur Bogota fairy bogota (colombia) represented by Me Alain MANVILLE, of SELARL AMCOR JURISTE & ASSOCIES, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE
SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS SA, company in liquidation. Calle 2, n ° 87-15 Hangar 72 MEDILLIN COLOMBIA represented by Me Alain MANVILLE, of SELARL AMCOR JURISTE & ASSOCIES, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE Master FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERA, the quality of the WEST CAIBBEAN AIRWAYS Calle 70 AN ° 6-24 Piso 2 BOGOTA COLOMBIA represented by Me Alain MANVILLE, of SELARL AMCOR JURISTE & ASSOCIES lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE
RESPONDENTS:
Madame Yolaine B., agissant tant en son nom propre qu’es qualité de représentante légale de son enfant mineur Guy J. B., né le 24 novembre 1994 au Lamentin Bat 28 – Touloulou Porte 8 97280 VAUCLIN SELARL MATHURIN BELIA & ROTSEN MEYZINDI, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE (bénéficie d’une aide juridictionnelle Totale numéro 2010/005780 du 27/01/2011 accordée par le bureau d’aide juridictionnelle de FORT DE FRANCE)
Mademoiselle Daniella B Bt 28 - Touloulou Porte 8 97280 LE VAUCLIN represented by Me Alberte ROTSEN MEYZINDI of SELARL MATHURIN BELIA & ROTSEN MEYZINDI, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE (bénéficie d’une aide juridictionnelle Totale numéro 2010/005794 du 27/01/2011 accordée par le bureau d’aide juridictionnelle de FORT DE FRANCE)
COMPOSITION OF THE COURT:
Les parties ont été autorisées à déposer leur dossier le 12 octobre 2012 conformément aux dispositions de l’article
779 alinéa 3 du code de procédure civile et informées en application de l’article 786-1 du même code du nom des
magistrates brought to deliberate either:
President: Ms. DERYCKERE, Advisor Assessor: Ms SUBIETA FORONDA, Advisor Assessor: Ms TRIOL, Advisor
et de la date du prononcé de l’arrêt fixée au 14 DECEMBRE 2012 Registrar: during the debates, Ms SOUNDOROM,
JUDGMENT: contradictory,
pronounced publicly, by making available to the court registry, the parties having been previously notified
dans les conditions prévues au deuxième alinéa de l’article 450 du code de procédure civile;
FACTS, PROCEDURE, MEANS AND CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES
Par jugement du 30 septembre 2008, le tribunal de grande instance de Fort de France a condamné la compagnie d’assurance ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS à payer en réparation du préjudice subi du fait du décès de M. André V. [sic] en réalité Anicet V., dans l’accident d’avion survenu le 16 août 2005 au Vénézuela : - to Ms. Yolaine B. in a personal capacity € 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and € 5,000 for economic damage, - to Mrs B. as legal representative of her children then minors Daniella and Guy J., each € 35,000 in respect of their non-pecuniary damage and € 4,000 in compensation for the hereditary damage caused by the victim's suffering, – outre 2 000 € sur le fondement de l’article 700 du code de procédure civile.
L’assureur, et Me Felipe NEGRET MOSQUERA en qualité de liquidateur de la SA WEST CARIBEAN AIRWAYS ont
appealed from the judgment, by declaration of September 30, 2010, only convictions pronounced
title of hereditary harm.
Par dernières conclusions en date du 23 mai 2012, les appelants font valoir que ce préjudice n’a pas pu entrer dans le
patrimoine du défunt, transmis aux ayants droit puisqu’il n’est qu’hypothétique et donc non réparable. Ils ajoutent que
l’accident ayant entraîné une mort instantanée, le préjudice moral du défunt ne peut être retenu. Subsidiairement, ils font
observer que le défunt ayant 8 descendants, les enfants B. ne devraient pouvoir prétendre qu’à une somme de 2 500 €
each and not not € 4,000.
Under their last submissions of March 10, 2011, the respondents, Ms. Yolaine B., acting both on her behalf
propre qu’en qualité de représentante légale de son fils mineur Guy J., et Mlle Daniella B. devenue majeure, demandent
à la cour de confirmer le principe de l’indemnisation d’un préjudice héréditaire de souffrance dans ce cas, en faisant
valoir qu’il est incontestable que dans le courant d’un crash d’avion, les passagers ont ressenti l’imminence de leur mort
avec le sentiment de panique et d’impuissance, et la conscience de quitter la vie avant son terme. Ce préjudice moral
étant né avant le décès, le droit personnel à réparation est entré dans le patrimoine de la victime et s’est transmis à ses
heirs. Given the extraordinary nature of the circumstances of death, they claim in counterclaim to
fixer ce préjudice successoral à la somme de 35 000 € et font valoir qu’il n’est pas démontré que M. V. ait eu plus que 5
enfants comme l’avait retenu le tribunal.
REASONS
On hereditary harm:
Toute victime d’un dommage a le droit d’en obtenir réparation de celui qui l’a causé, droit patrimonial transmissible à ses héritiers. Le préjudice réparable doit être direct et certain, en relation avec le fait dommageable.
En l’espèce, contrairement à ce qu’affirment les appelants, la chute de l’avion est un fait constant indiscutable, qui
n’aurait pas dû arriver dans des circonstances normales de vol. Il convient donc de prendre en compte l’ensemble des
circonstances de l’accident, depuis le décrochage aérien, emportant perte brutale d’altitude et dépressurisation de la
cabine, jusqu’à l’impact final. Par conséquent, il ne peut être argué d’un décès instantané des passagers, qui ne
would ignore the few minutes during which they were necessarily confronted with the terror of
vertige de la chute, ainsi qu’à l’angoisse puis la certitude de leur mort inexorable, générateurs de souffrances à tout le
moins morales, qui ne sauraient être qualifiées d’hypothétiques.
The court considers that the court made a fair assessment of the quantum of this liquidated damage in the sum of 20,000 €
.
On the applicants' estate vocation:
A titre subsidiaire, les appelants ne contestent pas la qualité d’héritiers de Daniella et Guy J. B. comme ayant été les
natural children of the late Anicet V., but their hereditary part. They maintain that the latter had 8 children and not
5 comme l’a retenu le tribunal. Ils produisent cependant la mauvaise photocopie d’un document à l’entête de la Ville du
Saint Esprit, intitulé Certificat d’Hérédité, non signé, et non daté prétendant avoir été établi à la demande de Mme
Gabrielle C., wife of MV, and mentioning 6 children who do not all bear the name of the deceased, and without indication of
their date of birth. This unofficial and truncated document cannot carry the conviction of the court, due to the
surplus de la contradiction qu’il présente à la fois avec le jugement déclaratif de décès qu’après enquête le parquet de
Fort de France a requis à destination de l’épouse et de trois enfants légitimes de M. V., et avec l’arrêt rendu par cette
court which confirmed the authorship of MV on the children of Mrs. B. who was disputed by Mrs. C., indicating it
even that the latter had three children.
The share retained by the court in favor of Daniella and Guy JB corresponding to one fifth of the compensation for
hereditary prejudice of suffering, ie € 4,000 each will therefore be confirmed.
Les appelants conserveront la charge des dépens d’appel.
FOR THESE REASONS
The court, ruling within the limits of its referral;
Confirm the judgment referred;
Condamne les appelants aux dépens d’appel ;
Authorizes SELARL MATHURIN BELLIA & ROTSEN MEYSENDI to recover those costs directly from it
aurait fait l’avance sans en avoir reçu provision.
Signed by Mrs. DERYCKERE, president, and Mrs. SOUNDOROM clerk, during the delivery at which the minute was
discount.
THE REGISTRAR, THE PRESIDENT,
Composition of the jurisdiction: Mme DERYCKERE, JURISTE & Associés, SELARL Amcor, Alain MANVILLE,
SELARL Mathurin Belia & ROTSEN MEYZINDI, Me Alberte ROTSEN MEYZINDI
Contested decision: TGI Fort-de-France, Fort-de-France 2008-09-30
***
IV. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CALENDARSTOPN ° 10/00645 (18/01/2013)
LA COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCES ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS
SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS SA
FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERO
VS/
L.
COUR D’APPEL DE FORT DE FRANCE CIVIL ROOM JUDGMENT OF JANUARY 18, 2013
Decision referred to the court: Judgment of the judge of the High Court of Fort de France, dated 30
September 2008, registered under number 07/1645.
CALLERS:
LA COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCES ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS, prise en sa qualité d’assureur de la Compagnie WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS, prise en la personne de son représentant légal Carera 13 AN ° 29-24 Piso 17 Ala Sur Bogota fairy bogota (colombia) represented by Me Alain MANVILLE of SELARL AMCOR JURISTE & ASSOCIES, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE
SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS SA, company in liquidation. Calle 2, n ° 87-15 Hangar 72 MEDILLIN COLOMBIA represented by Me Alain MANVILLE of SELARL AMCOR JURISTE & ASSOCIES, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE Master FELIPE NEGRET MOSQUERO, he is the liquidator of the WEST CAIBBEAN AIRWAYS Company Calle 70 AN ° 6-24 Piso 2 BOGOTA COLOMBIA represented by Me Alain MANVILLE of SELARL AMCOR JURISTE & ASSOCIES, lawyers at the bar of MARTINIQUE
RESPONDENT:
Madame Miguèle L., acting in personam and in her capacity as legal representative of her minor son Grégory Jean Pascal L. Les Hauts de Dillon - Bât. 5 - Gate 4 97200 FORT DE FRANCE represented by Me Marlène CUPIT, lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE (bénéficie d’une aide juridictionnelle Totale numéro 2011/002870 du 19/07/2011 accordée par le bureau d’aide juridictionnelle de FORT DE FRANCE)
COMPOSITION OF THE COURT:
L’affaire a été débattue le 26 octobre 2012 en audience publique, devant la cour composée de : Mr. FAU, President of the Chamber, Ms DERYCKERE, Advisor in charge of the report M. CHEVRIER, Advisor qui en ont délibéré, les parties ayant été avisées de la date du prononcé de l’arrêt fixée au 18 JANVIER 2013. REGISTRAR: during the debates, Mrs S.,
JUDGMENT: contradictory,
pronounced publicly, by making available to the court registry, the parties having been previously notified
dans les conditions prévues au deuxième alinéa de l’article 450 du code de procédure civile;
FACTS, PROCEDURE, MEANS AND CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES
By judgment of September 30, 2008, rectified on November 19, 2009, the High Court of Fort de France
condamné la compagnie d’assurance ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS à payer en réparation du préjudice subi du
fait du décès de M G. LAURENT et de son fils Johan L., dans l’accident d’avion survenu le 16 août 2005 au Venezuela,
sums for various loss items, including Ms. Miguèle L. € 43,000 in compensation for her
non-pecuniary damage, € 15,000 in compensation for economic damage, and € 5,000 in compensation for hereditary damage
suffered by his father G. LAURENT.
L’assureur, et Me Felipe NEGRET MOSQUERA en qualité de liquidateur de la SA WEST CARIBEAN AIRWAYS ont
by declaration of September 30, 2010, appeal from the judgment, expressly limited to this count
pronounced for hereditary harm.
Par dernières conclusions en date du 8 février 2012, les appelants font valoir que ce préjudice n’a pas pu entrer dans le
patrimony of the deceased, transmitted to the beneficiaries, the death having been instantaneous, and this damage being in addition
hypothetical and therefore not repairable.
Subsidiairement, ils font observer que le préjudice successoral a été évalué forfaitairement à 20 000 €, et qu’il appartient à la demanderesse de démontrer l’étendue de son droit successoral, ce qu’elle ne fait pas par la production d’un certificat d’hérédité.
Or, le nombre d’héritiers est incertain, puisque arrêté à 4 selon le jugement alors qu’un autre du même jour rendu également du chef de G. LAURENT alloue une somme de 20 000 € à Ketty L. en qualité de seule héritière ce qui crée une contradiction dans la dévolution successorale de l’indemnité héréditaire.
Aux termes de leurs dernières conclusions du 10 novembre 2001, Mme Miguèle L., fait valoir sur le principe de l’indemnisation d’un préjudice héréditaire de souffrance dans ce cas, qu’il est incontestable que dans le courant d’un crash d’avion, les passagers ont ressenti la souffrance atroce de se voir mourir.
Ce préjudice moral étant né avant le décès, le droit personnel à réparation est entré dans le patrimoine de la victime et s’est transmis à ses héritiers. En ce qui concerne le quantum, elle fait valoir qu’elle démontre suffisamment sa qualité d’héritière, qu’elle n’a pas à produire de certificat d’hérédité, et que le tribunal a mal apprécié la situation en lui allouant 5 000 € seulement. Elle réclame 30 000 € pour elle. Outre une indemnité de 2 000 € au titre de l’article 37 de la loi du 10 juillet 1991.
REASONS
On the principle of hereditary harm:
Toute victime d’un dommage a le droit d’en obtenir réparation de celui qui l’a causé. Ce droit patrimonial est
transmissible to his heirs. The reparable damage must be direct and certain, in relation to the harmful event.
En l’espèce, contrairement à ce qu’affirment les appelants, la chute de l’avion est un fait constant indiscutable, qui n’aurait pas dû arriver dans des circonstances normales de vol.
Il convient donc de prendre en compte l’ensemble des circonstances de l’accident, depuis le décrochage aérien, emportant perte brutale d’altitude et dépressurisation de la cabine, jusqu’à l’impact final.
Par conséquent, il ne peut être argué d’un décès instantané des passagers, qui ne tiendrait pas compte des quelques minutes aux cours desquelles ils ont nécessairement été confrontés à la terreur du vertige de la chute, ainsi qu’à l’angoisse puis la certitude de leur mort inexorable, générateurs de souffrances à tout le moins morales, qui ne sauraient être qualifiées d’hypothétiques.
The court considers that the court made a fair assessment of the quantum of this liquidated damage in the amount of € 20,000.
On the applicant's estate vocation:
Il convient d’observer que la vocation successorale de Mme L. n’est pas critiquée en tant que telle. Elle avait d’ailleurs
été retenue par le tribunal au vu de l’acte de naissance de
Mme Miguèle L. établissant qu’elle était la fille du défunt.
Les premiers juges ont par ailleurs calculé sa vocation héréditaire à raison d’un quart, au vu des mentions figurant aux
conclusions des défendeurs, citant les trois autres enfants de M. L., qui ont transigé directement l’indemnisation de
leurs préjudices avec la compagnie d’assurance. Mme Miguèle L. n’a pas contesté la vocation héréditaire de ces co
héritiers, et aucune des parties ne fournit à la cour le moindre document permettant de contredire l’appréciation du
tribunal. Quant au jugement invoqué par les appelants, il n’est pas opposable à l’appelante. La cour ne dispose au
présent dossier, et contradictoirement, d’aucun élément permettant de constater la prétendue contrariété entre les deux
decisions and to reform the judgment presently referred to the court.
Les appelants conserveront la charge des dépens d’appel.
Mme L., qui bénéficie de l’aide juridictionnelle ne justifie pas des frais supplémentaires qu’elle aurait été contrainte d’assumer personnellement. Sa demande fondée sur l’article 37 de la loi du 10 juillet 1991 sera rejetée.
FOR THESE REASONS
The court, ruling within the limits of its referral, Confirm the judgment referred, Rejette la demande fondée sur l’article 37 de la loi du 10 juillet 1991, Condamne les appelants aux dépens d’appel. Signed by Mr. FAU, President of the Chamber, and Mrs. RIBAL, Registrar, during the delivery, to which the minute has been postponed. THE REGISTRAR, THE PRESIDENT,
Composition of the jurisdiction: M. FAU, JURISTE & Associés, SELARL Amcor, Alain MANVILLE, Me Marlène
CUPIT
V. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CALENDARSTOPN ° 10/00634 (19/04/2013)
***
VI. CA FORT DE FRANCE CH. CALENDARSTOPN ° 10/00667 (07/06/2013)
G.
VS/
COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCES ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS FELIPE NM
Judicial litigation JurisData number: 2013-024118
COUR D’APPEL DE FORT DE FRANCE CIVIL ROOM JUDGMENT OF JUNE 07, 2013 Decision referred to the court: Judgment of the High Court of Fort-de-France, dated December 15, 2009, registered under number 07/01725.
CALLING:
Monsieur Henri Augustin G.
represented by Me Laurence HO-L., lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE
(bénéficie d’une aide juridictionnelle Totale numéro 2012/003629 du 18/09/2012 accordée par le bureau d’aide
FORT DE FRANCE)
INTIMES:
COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCES ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS, prise en la personne de son représentant légal represented by Me Alain M., lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE
SA WEST CARIBBEAN AIRWAYS represented by Me Alain M., lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE Maître FELIPE NM, es quality of liquidating agent of the company West Caribbean Airways represented by Me Alain M., lawyer at the bar of MARTINIQUE
COMPOSITION OF THE COURT:
En application des dispositions des articles 786 et 910 du code de procédure civile, l’affaire a été débattue à l’audience publique du 12 avril 2013, les avocats ne s’y étant pas opposés, devant Mme DERYCKERE, conseillère, chargée du rapport. Ce magistrat a rendu compte des plaidoiries dans le délibéré de la cour, composée de : M. LALLEMENT, President of the Chamber Ms DERYCKERE, Advisor Ms SUBIETA-FORONDA, Advisor
Les parties ont été avisées de la date du prononcé de l’arrêt fixée au 07 JUIN 2013 Registrar, during the debates: Ms SOUNDOROM,
JUDGMENT: contradictory,
pronounced publicly, by making available to the court registry, the parties having been previously notified in
les conditions prévues au deuxième alinéa de l’article 450 du code de procédure civile ;
FACTS, PROCEDURE, MEANS AND CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES
By judgment of December 15, 2009, the High Court of Fort de France condemned the company
d’assurance ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS à payer avec exécution provisoire à M Henri G. en réparation du
préjudice subi du fait du décès de ses parents, sa s’ur, sa nièce et son neveu, et son beau-frère, dans l’accident d’avion
occurred on August 16, 2005 in Venezuela, various sums in respect of non-pecuniary damage, hereditary damage related to
souffrances des victimes directes, de la perte des bagages outre une indemnité sur le fondement de l’article 700 du code
of civil procedure, and declared the judgment opposable to Me Felipe NM as liquidator of the company West
Caribbean Airways (WCA).
By declaration of October 5, 2010, Mr. G. appealed from the judgment.
In her last conclusions of December 7, 2012, Miss Inna G., her daughter, intervened voluntarily alongside
l’appelant. Dans le corps de ses conclusions il formule des demandes également au nom de son fils mineur Mehdi G..
Aux termes de ces dernières conclusions, M G. demande à la cour de reconsidérer ses demandes d’indemnisation poste par poste.
M G.:
Fait valoir que la convention de Montréal du 28 mai 1999, ratifiée par la France et la Colombie seule applicable à la présente espèce, fixe une responsabilité objective et automatique du transporteur jusqu’à 100 000 DTS par passager ayant trouvé la mort ou subi des lésions à bord d’un aéronef soit à la date du jugement 172 948 euro, le transporteur pouvant au-delà de cette somme, s’exonérer de sa responsabilité en démontrant qu’il n’a pas commis de négligence ou que le dommage résulte de la faute d’un tiers.
rappelle que dans ce drame, lui et ses deux enfants ont perdu six membres de leur famille, que cela détruit la vie d’un homme, et qu’il attend la liquidation de son préjudice pour pouvoir faire son deuil.
précise qu’au moment de la catastrophe, il était en instance de divorce et était revenu vivre chez ses parents où il recevait ses enfants à l’occasion des droits de visite et d’hébergement, que la privation brutale du soutien et de l’affection de ses plus proches parents l’a plongé dans une longue et durable dépression.
entend également démontrer les liens affectifs et la communauté d’intérêts économiques l’unissant à son beau-frère, et fondant sa demande de réparation du chef de ce dernier que le tribunal lui avait refusée.
chiffre sa demande au titre du préjudice moral et d’affection à la somme de 100 000 euro pour la perte de ses parents, 80 000 euro pour la perte de sa s’ur, 50 000 euro pour la perte de son beau-frère, et 30 000 euro pour la perte de ses deux neveux.
fait valoir qu’aucune somme n’a été versée pour le préjudice de ses enfants, dont le préjudice d’affection est indéniable.
Inna G., now an adult, requests 15,000 euros for the loss of her grandparents, 10,000 euros for the loss of her godmother and her uncle and 5,000 euros for the loss of her cousins, a total sum of 60,000 euro and Mr G. asks for his minor son Mehdi an equivalent compensation.
Par ailleurs, il demande pour lui-même l’indemnisation spécifique du traumatisme psychique qu’il subit à hauteur de 30 000 euro, et il expose que sa maladie traumatique lui a causé un glaucome fulgurant avec cécité à gauche 4 mois après le drame, ce qui lui occasionne une IPP de 70% dont il réclame réparation à hauteur de 199 500 euro. Au titre du préjudice héréditaire, il sollicite 30 000 euro par passager auquel il succède, soit 90 000 euro.
Il demande l’indemnisation de son préjudice patrimonial, tiré de l’incidence professionnelle liée à son traumatisme psychique, en invoquant le fait qu’il n’a jamais pu reprendre son travail, et qu’il ne vit plus que le l’ASS pour 600 euro par mois. Il demande 580 800 euro. Outre 150 350 euro en raison de la perte du soutien financier que lui apportaient ses parents. Il fait valoir en outre que ses parents avaient commencé à organiser leur succession pour faire bénéficier leurs enfants d’une exonération des droits de succession, ce que l’accident n’a pas permis de faire, soit 60% de l’actif successoral qui représente 349 764 euro. Il demande également 2000 DTS au titre de la perte des bagages de ses neveux qui avaient droit à un bagage chacun, soit 3 600 euro. Subsidiairement, il demande la réparation de son préjudice à hauteur de 100 00 DTS du chef de la perte de ses parents et de sa s’ur, et 50 000 DTS du chef de chacun de ses neveux. Il demande en outre 5 000 euro sur le fondement de l’article 700 du code de procédure civile appliqué à la procédure d’appel.
The company ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS and Me Felipe NM in their capacity as liquidator of the company WCA, in their last written responses in response filed on January 10, 2013 conclude with the confirmation of the judgment except on the hereditary prejudice, and the rejection of all the other requests.
Selon eux, le préjudice dit de souffrance des victimes est non réparable car hypothétique, et n’a pas pu entrer dans le patrimoine des défunts dont le décès a été instantané.
Furthermore, in the absence of questioning of his social security organization, on pain of the nullity of this judgment, Mr. G. must be ordered to regularize his procedure, or his claims for compensation for his damage subject to appeal must be rejected.
Ils n’opposent pas d’irrecevabilité aux demandes présentées tardivement et pour la première fois en cause d’appel par et au nom des enfants de M. G., mais s’opposent aux demandes des enfants relatives à la perte de leurs cousins faute de démonstration d’un lien d’affection particulier les ayant unis.
Pour le surplus ils soutiennent que la convention de Montréal, ne fait que reprendre le principe du droit français de l’équivalence du dommage à la réparation, afin d’éviter tout enrichissement sans cause de la victime, et qu’au regard de ce principe les demandes de M. G. sont excessives, et non justifiées tant médicalement qu’économiquement ou patrimonialement.
REASONS
La convention de Montréal du 28 mai 1999, dont l’application au présent litige n’est pas contestée, prévoit en son article 17-1 que le transporteur est responsable du préjudice survenu en cas de mort ou de lésion corporelle subie par un passager, du seul fait que l’accident qui a causé la mort ou la lésion s’est produit à bord de l’aéronef ou au cours des opérations d’embarquement ou de débarquement. L’article 21 de la convention précise que pour les dommages prévus par cette disposition, et ne dépassant pas 100 000 DTS, le transporteur ne peut exclure ou limiter sa responsabilité, alors qu’il n’est pas responsable des dommages dépassant cette valeur s’il prouve qu’il n’est pas dû à sa négligence ou à un autre acte préjudiciable, ou qu’il résulte de la négligence ou d’un autre acte préjudiciable d’un tiers.
Contrairement à la lecture qu’en fait le demandeur, il ne s’agit pas d’un principe d’indemnisation forfaitaire automatique
d’un montant minimum de 100 000 DTS, mais d’un régime de responsabilité fondée sur une présomption irréfragable ou
simple en fonction de l’évaluation du préjudice subi. Il faut donc d’abord liquider le préjudice.
Hereditary harm
Il convient de rappeler que toute victime d’un dommage a le droit d’en obtenir réparation de celui qui l’a causé. Ce droit
inheritance is transferable to his heirs. The reparable damage must be direct and certain, in relation to the fact
damaging.
En l’espèce, contrairement à ce qu’affirment les intimés, la chute de l’avion est un fait constant indiscutable, qui n’aurait
should not have happened under normal flight circumstances.
Il convient donc de prendre en compte l’ensemble des circonstances de l’accident, depuis le décrochage aérien, emportant perte brutale d’altitude et dépressurisation de la cabine, jusqu’à l’impact final.
Par conséquent, il ne peut être argué d’un décès instantané des passagers, qui ne tiendrait pas compte des quelques minutes aux cours desquelles ils ont nécessairement été confrontés à la terreur du vertige de la chute, ainsi qu’à l’angoisse puis la certitude de leur mort inexorable, générateurs de souffrances à tout le moins morales, qui ne sauraient être qualifiées d’hypothétiques.
The court considers that the court made a fair assessment of the quantum of this liquidated damage in the sum of 20,000
euro.
M. G. ne conteste pas qu’il n’est l’héritier que de ses parents et de sa soeur.
Ayant justifié être seul héritier il a vocation à recueillir cette somme liquidée à 20 000 euro du chef de chacun d’eux, en son intégralité. Le jugement sera confirmé à ce titre.
Il convient de préciser que l’indemnité pour perte de bagages expressément prévue par l’article 22 de la convention de Montréal répare le préjudice matériel subi par les passagers, et répond donc à la même logique tirée de la vocation successorale du demandeur.
Les premiers juges ne peuvent qu’être approuvés de lui avoir accordé l’indemnité forfaitaire de 1000 DTS définie par la convention pour chacun de ses parents et pour sa soeur, à l’exclusion de celle de ses neveux, pour qui il aurait fallu rechercher s’il existe ou non des successibles dans la branche paternelle, en ligne directe ou en ligne collatérale à un rang potentiellement préférable au sien.
However, it does not demonstrate this. The judgment will be confirmed on this count.
Sur le préjudice d’affection de M Henri G. :
Le préjudice personnel direct est certain des victimes par ricochet tenant à l’arrachement brutal d’un être cher à l’affection de ses proches, est liquidé en tenant compte des circonstances de l’accident, de la proximité et des liens précédemment entretenus entre eux.
Il est parfaitement justifié par M. G., qu’il vivait au domicile de ses parents en raison de sa procédure de divorce en cours, ce qui renforce la perception du soutien affectif et moral qu’il recueillait de la part de ses parents. Il est justifié du caractère uni de cette famille et des liens étroits entretenus entre chacun des membres de la famille.
Il est également justifié de l’amitié et de la communauté d’intérêts économiques l’ayant uni à son beau-frère.
Par ailleurs, il doit être fait une appréciation particulière du préjudice moral subi par M. G. tenant au fait qu’il a laissé
dans la tragédie la totalité de ses proches parents, sa famille par le sang s’étant réduite en un instant à ses enfants et lui.
The court considers that this head of damage for MG must be repaired up to 60,000 euros for the loss of each of his parents, 30,000 euros for the loss of his sister, 15,000 euros for the loss of each of his nephews, and 8,000 euros for the loss of his brother-in-law.
The judgment will be reformed in this sense.
On the psychological trauma invoked by Mr. G.:
Mr. G. provides a medical certificate dated May 23, 2006, attesting to his post traumatic stress disorder with episode
major depression following the air crash in which he lost his entire family. On the date of the certificate, the practitioner
judged his stationary state with persistent anxiety and depressive disorders.
Doit donc en l’espèce être admise la démonstration de ce que
M. G. subit un préjudice par ricochet distinct du préjudice d’affection lié à la perte proprement dite de ses proches
parents au sens large, et en lien direct avec la catastrophe aérienne fondant le droit à réparation à l’égard du transporteur.
His request will be granted in full, the sum of 30,000 euros being allocated to him from then on. The
judgment will be quashed on this point.
Sur le Préjudice d’affection de Inna et Mehdi G. :
La recevabilité des demandes présentées en appel par ces derniers, n’étant pas discutée, il sera indiqué sur le fond, que les considérations ci-dessus retenues doivent être reprises pour les enfants de M G., dont les difficultés conjugales n’ont en rien affecté les relations entre ses enfants et leur famille paternelle.
Doit s’y ajouter la circonstance que leur oncle et tante étaient respectivement leur parrain et marraine, ce qui induit la disparition d’une référence d’un autre ordre dans leur vie, mais parfaitement admissible compte tenu de la dynamique qui animait cette famille, ainsi qu’en rendent compte les photographies, les lettres échangées et les témoignages.
Enfin, les liens d’amitié ayant existé entre les 4 cousins, dans ce contexte de disparition brutale de leur branche collatérale paternelle, permettent de fonder ces chefs de demande que les intimés contestent.
In these conditions, their moral prejudice will be repaired as follows:
Pour chacun d’eux, la perte de leurs grands-parents sera évaluée à 15 000 euro chacun, celle de leur oncle et tante, à 8
000 euros, that of their cousins, at 4,000 euros. It will be added to the judgment of these chiefs.
Sur les différents postes d’indemnisation du préjudice corporel invoqué :
L’article 17-1 de la convention de Montréal ci-dessus rappelé pose le principe de l’indemnisation par le transporteur aérien, des préjudices tels que le décès et les lésions corporelles produits à bord de l’aéronef. Tel n’est pas le cas de M G.. La lésion corporelle qu’il invoque, à savoir un glaucome à angle fermé fulgurant, n’a pas été causée par l’accident.
Elle n’est selon lui, que la résultante de l’état de stress, de l’émotion et de la douleur ressentis en raison de la perte de sa famille dans la catastrophe aérienne.
A supposer avéré scientifiquement le lien entre le syndrome traumatique et la pette de vision, il s’agirait d’une résultante du traumatisme psychique dores et déjà indemnisé ci-dessus, et non pas de l’accident d’avion lui-même.
Ainsi au-delà de l’irrégularité procédurale tenant au défaut de mise en cause officielle (cf pièce 29 courrier d’appel amiable en déclaration de jugement commun) de son organisme de sécurité sociale et autres éventuels tiers payeurs, c’est le fondement même de son droit à réparation qui fait défaut en l’espèce.
Seront donc rejetées ses demandes d’indemnisation d’un déficit fonctionnel permanent, et de son incidence professionnelle.
On material damage:
Il appartient à M G. de démontrer l’existence d’un préjudice économique en lien direct avec le décès de ses parents.
S’il n’est pas contesté qu’il vivait au domicile de ces derniers, il est tout aussi constant qu’il avait ses propres revenus, qu’il chiffre à 2 200 euro par mois, et qu’il qualifie lui-même dans ses conclusions de corrects, de sorte qu’il ne peut prétendre comme il le présente dans son calcul de perte de revenus, au statut d’un enfant à charge à qui l’on reconnaîtrait une part de consommation de 15% des revenus de ses parents.
Mathématiquement, si l’on tient compte de ses propres revenus dans la détermination des ressources annuelles du foyer, sa part de consommation de 15% est absorbée intégralement dans son propre apport, de sorte qu’il n’est pas justifié d’une perte dans les revenus des proches disparus, dont il a par ailleurs hérité du patrimoine.
Le rejet de cette demande par les premiers juges ne peut qu’être confirmé.
Concernant l’exonération des droits de succession, il verse seulement un courrier de ses parents en date du 2 mai 2005, exposant à leurs enfants qu’ils envisagent de transmettre leurs biens immobiliers par le biais d’une SCI.
Or, les chances de réalisations de ce montage juridique en l’absence de tout autre acte préparatoire restent hypothétiques mais il n’est fourni aucune étude sur l’avantage fiscal attendu de l’opération, ni la justification du calcul des droits de succession par tranches, ni de leur taux indiqué à 60% pour un descendant en ligne directe.
Il n’est d’ailleurs pas justifié de la liquidation de la succession et des droits.
Seul est justifié au titre du préjudice matériel de la somme de 5 416,27 euro restant à la charge de M G. au titre de l’acquisition d’une concession funéraire à parts égales avec M M., le père de son beau-frère.
En cet état des justificatifs fournis, la demande au titre du préjudice matériel sera accueillie à hauteur d’une somme arrondie à 5 500 euro.
Au final, le dommage ainsi liquidé étant inférieur à l’équivalent de 100 000 DTS par passager, le transporteur dûment assuré et garanti par la société ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS, doit l’indemniser sans possibilité d’exonération, ce qui n’est d’ailleurs pas demandé par les intimés.
Par conséquent, la demande subsidiaire tendant à arrondir l’indemnisation à 100 000 DTS par passager disparu ne trouve aucun fondement dans la convention de Montréal.
Les dépens seront mis à la charge des intimés et l’l’équité commande d’allouer à une somme de 5 000 euro sur le
fondement de l’article 700 du code de procédure civile au titre des frais exposés en cause d’appel.
FOR THESE REASONS
Confirme le jugement déféré sauf en ses dispositions relatives au préjudice d’affection de M G., et au préjudice distinct
linked to mental trauma;
Ruling again and adding to it;
Condamne la compagnie d’assurance ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS à payer à M G. les sommes de : - 60,000 euros for the loss of Mrs. Eugénie G., - 60,000 euro for the loss of M Joseph G., - 30,000 euro for the loss of Mrs. Murielle G. marries M., - 15,000 euro for the loss of Nicolas M., - 15,000 euro for the loss of Maëva M., - 8,000 euros for the loss of Mr. Max M., - 30,000 euros for separate mental trauma, - 5,500 euros in respect of pecuniary damage,
Condamne la compagnie d’assurance ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS à payer à M G. en qualité de représentant légal de son fils mineur Mehdi G., les sommes de : - 15,000 euros for the loss of his grandmother Eugénie G., - 15,000 euros for the loss of his grandfather Joseph G., - 8,000 euro for the loss of his uncle Max M., - 8,000 euro for the loss of his aunt Murielle M., - 4,000 euros for the loss of his cousin Nicolas, - 4,000 euros for the loss of his cousin Maëva,
Condamne la compagnie d’assurance ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS à payer à Mlle Inna G. les sommes de : - 15,000 euros for the loss of his grandmother Eugénie G., - 15,000 euros for the loss of his grandfather Joseph G., - 8,000 euro for the loss of his uncle Max M., - 8,000 euro for the loss of his aunt Murielle M., - 4,000 euros for the loss of his cousin Nicolas, - 4,000 euros for the loss of his cousin Maëva,
Dit que l’ensemble des indemnités allouées en cause d’appel produiront intérêt au taux légal à compter du présent arrêt,
Condamne la compagnie d’assurance ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS à payer à M G. la somme de 5 000 euro sur le
fondement des dispositions de l’article 700 du code de procédure civile,
Reject excess requests,
Declares the present judgment enforceable against Me Felipe NM as liquidator of the company West Caribbean Airways,
Condamne la société ASEGURADORA COLSEGUROS aux dépens d’appel.
Signed by Mr. LALLEMENT, President of the Chamber, and Ms. RIBAL, Registrar, when the minute was postponed.
THE REGISTRAR, THE PRESIDENT,
***
VII. CA PARIS POLE 2, ROOM 2,STOPN ° 13/04044 (19/12/2014)
Large deliveries FRENCH REPUBLIC
to the parties on: ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
COUR D’APPEL DE PARIS
Pole 2 - Bedroom 2
Numéro d’inscription au répertoire général : 13/04044
Judicial litigation
Decision referred to the Court: Judgment of January 11, 2013 -Tribunal de Grande Instance de Bobigny - RG n ° 11/06160
APPELLANTS
Madame Victoire by Jolie K.
Represented by Me Kenneth W. of SELARL W., lawyer at the bar of PARIS, toque: P0046
Mrs. Annie-Aurélie K.
Represented by Me Kenneth W. of SELARL W., lawyer at the bar of PARIS, toque: P0046
respondents
AIR FRANCE company taken in the person of its legal representative
Represented by Me Jacques B., lawyer at the PARIS bar, toque: G0334
Assisted by Me Benjamin P., lawyer at the bar of PARIS, toque: P429
KENYA AIRWAYS Company (having its establishment in […]) taken in the person of its legal representative
Represented by Me Jacques B., lawyer at the PARIS bar, toque: G0334
Assisted by Me Benjamin P., lawyer at the bar of PARIS, toque: P429
COMPOSITION OF THE COURT:
En application des dispositions des articles 786 et 907 du code de procédure civile, l’affaire a été débattue le 14 Novembre 2014, en audience publique, les avocats ne s’y étant pas opposé, devant Madame Anne VIDAL, présidente de chambre, chargée d’instruire le dossier.
Un rapport a été présenté à l’audience dans les conditions de l’article 785 du Code de procédure civile.
This magistrate reported on the pleadings in the deliberations of the Court, composed of:
- Mrs. Anne VIDAL, chamber president
- Mrs. Marie-Sophie RICHARD, advisor
- Mrs. Isabelle CHESNOT, advisor
Registrar, during the debates: Mr. Guillaume LE FORESTIER
STOP:
- contradictory
– par mise à disposition de l’arrêt au greffe de la Cour, les parties en ayant été préalablement avisées dans les conditions
prévues au deuxième alinéa de l’article 450 du code de procédure civile.
- signed by Mrs. Anne VIDAL,
chamber president
and by
Mr. Guillaume LE FORESTIER, clerk to whom the minute of the decision was handed over by the signatory magistrate.
****
FACTS, PROCEDURE AND CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES:
Thérèse N. épouse K., domiciliée à Douala (Cameroun) a acheté au comptoir Air France de cette ville un billet d’avion
return trip between Douala and Guangzhou (China) with departure on May 5, 2007 and stopover in Nairobi (Kenya) by paying the price
du billet pour partie avec des miles de sa carte « Flying Blue ». L’avion, un Boeing 737-800 appartenant à la compagnie
Kenya Airways, s’est écrasé quelques minutes après son décollage en ne laissant aucun survivant.
Suivant actes d’huissier en date des 22 et 23 avril 2009, Mme Victoire K. et Mme Anne-Aurélie K., filles de la victime,
have summoned before the High Court of Bobigny the company Air France, the company Boeing Company and
Kenya Airways, as well as CFM International, Thalès Group and Thalès Avionic in compensation for their
prejudices.
Par arrêt en date du 12 janvier 2011, la cour d’appel de Paris, statuant sur l’appel d’une ordonnance du juge de la mise en
état, a constaté le désistement des demanderesses à l’encontre des sociétés Thalès Group et Thalès Avionic et déclaré le
competent regional court of Bobigny, holding that the company Air France had intervened in the capacity of
contractual carrier within the meaning of the Montreal Convention and Kenya Airways as carrier of
made.
By order of March 22, 2012, the pre-trial judge declared perfect the withdrawal of the plaintiffs from
l’encontre des sociétés CFM International et Boeing Company et la procédure s’est donc poursuivie à l’encontre
only from Air France and Kenya Airways.
Mrs. Victoire K. and Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K. asked for the joint condemnation of the company Air France and the
Kenya Airways company to pay them various sums as damages in compensation for their damages,
arguing that the question of the quality of carrier of these two companies had already been decided, that the report
d’enquête avait mis en lumière une faute manifeste de pilotage et qu’elles étaient les seules héritières de Marie-Thérèse
N. wife K.
Par jugement en date du 11 janvier 2013, le tribunal de grande instance de Bobigny a déclaré la société Air France et la société Kenya Airways responsables à l’égard de Thérèse N. épouse K. des conséquences dommageables de l’accident d’aéronef survenu le 5 mai 2007, considérant que l’arrêt de la cour d’appel du 12 janvier 2011 n’avait d’autorité de chose jugée que sur la compétence mais retenant que la société Air France avait bien la qualité de transporteur contractuel.
Il les a condamnées in solidum à réparer l’entier dommage, sans appliquer les limites de garantie de la convention de Montréal en raison de l’absence de causes exonératoires et au regard des résultats de l’enquête concluant aux fautes de pilotage, et à verser à Mme Victoire K. et Mme Anne-Aurélie K. la somme de 25.000 euro à chacune au titre de leur préjudice moral, celle de 15.000 euro au titre du préjudice moral de la victime, celle de 1.438,81 euro au titre des frais d’obsèques et de transport et une somme équivalente à 1.000 droits de tirage spéciaux (DTS) en vigueur à la date de sa décision au titre de la perte des bagages et effets personnels.
Il a débouté Mme Victoire K. et Mme Anne-Aurélie K. du surplus de leurs demandes, à l’exception de la somme de 5.000 euro en application des dispositions de l’article 700 du code de procédure civile.
Ms. Victoire K. and Ms. Anne-Aurélie K. appealed this decision following a declaration dated February 27
2013.
Par ordonnance en date du 17 octobre 2013, le conseiller de la mise en état a ordonné l’exécution provisoire des
condamnations prononcées par le tribunal à l’encontre de la seule société Kenya Airways au profit de Mme Victoire K.
et Mme Anne-Aurélie K. mais a rejeté leur demande en paiement d’une provision ad litem.
——————–
Mrs. Victoire K. and Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K., according to their last conclusions served on November 4, 2014,
ask the court to:
Confirmer la décision déférée en ce qu’elle a déclaré la société Air France et la société Kenya Airways responsables des
conséquences dommageables de l’accident survenu le 5 mai 2007 à l’égard de Thérèse N. épouse K.,
Reform it on the quantum of compensation awarded and jointly condemn Air France and the company
Kenya Airways to pay them the following amounts:
In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the sum of 50,000 euros each,
In respect of the material damage to the victim, the sum of 19,710 euro,
In respect of the moral prejudice of the victim, the sum of 70,000 euro,
Au titre des frais d’obsèques, de voyage et de séjour, the sum of 20,000 euro,
Au titre du préjudice de perte d’espérance de vie de la victime, the sum of 150,000 euro,
In respect of the loss of aid and subsidies for the girls, the sum of 100,000 euros,
In respect of the damage resulting from the loss of value of the business or, in the alternative, in respect of the loss of chance for his heiresses to receive a larger heritage, the sum of 256,551 euros,
For the loss of luggage, to be distributed among the beneficiaries, the equivalent in euros on the day of the decision of 1000 SDR,
As irreparable costs incurred at first instance, the sum of 83,047.75 euros,
Order Air France and Kenya Airways to pay them a sum of 25,000 euros in application
des dispositions de l’article 700 du code de procédure civile en cause d’appel.
Elles font valoir l’argumentation suivante :
Sur la responsabilité d’Air France en qualité de transporteur contractuel : deux décisions ont retenu cette qualité, l’arrêt
of the court of January 12, 2011 having res judicata and the judgment of the tribunal de grande instance de Bobigny du
of January 11, 2013 considering that the only contractual document provided was an Air France document mentioning
l’émission par Air France, la référence SKYTEAM et les conditions du vol sans mention des conditions IATA et MITA,
de sorte que l’acheteuse n’avait pas été informée de la qualité d’alléguée d’Air France, à savoir d’agent de la société
Kenya Airways;
Sur la responsabilité des transporteurs et l’indemnisation intégrale : elle est incontestable en application de l’article 17
alinéa 1er de la Convention de Montréal et de l’article 21 2° qui prévoit que le transporteur n’est pas responsable des
dommages au-delà de 100.000 DTS s’il prouve qu’ils ne sont pas dus à une négligence ou à un acte ou une omission
prejudicial to the carrier, its servants or its agents; however, in view of the report's conclusions
d’enquête, l’équipage a perdu le contrôle de l’avion en raison d’un contrôle inapproprié des opérations, d’un manque de
coordination entre les membres d’équipage, du non-respect des procédures de surveillance de vol et d’une confusion
dans l’utilisation du pilote automatique, outre un décollage sans l’autorisation de la tour de contrôle, et la société Kenya
Airways avait connaissance des lacunes du commandant de bord dans ses performances ; l’indemnisation doit donc être
total and unlimited;
Sur la qualité à agir des demanderesses : elles agissent en qualité d’héritières de Thérèse N. épouse K. (filles de la
deceased) in reparation for the prejudices thereof and on a personal basis in reparation for their own prejudices;
Sur les préjudices de Thérèse N. épouse K. : il convient de réparer le préjudice moral né de l’angoisse extrême de la passagère après le décollage et des souffrances subies entre le moment de l’écrasement de l’aéronef et le décès, présumé n’être intervenu qu’au moment de la découverte de l’avion, 40 heures plus tard ; doit également être réparée la perte d’espérance de vie qui constitue un préjudice distinct devant être évalué en tenant compte de l’âge de la victime (52 ans) et de son espérance de vie pendant encore 25 ans sur la base de 6.000 euro par an ; le préjudice matériel est constitué par la perte de l’argent liquide qu’avait emporté la victime pour ses affaires en Chine, estimé à 19.710 euro, et par la perte de valeur de son fonds de commerce calculé par un cabinet d’expertise sur la base des trois dernières années ;
The applicants' own damage: they claim compensation for their non-pecuniary damage (which must include the
dimension collective de la catastrophe, les difficultés d’identification du corps et le délai de rapatriement de la
dépouille),des frais d’obsèques et de voyages et séjours sur place, de la perte des secours et subsides dont elles
benefited from their mother, Victoire was still a student in Germany at the time of death, and the loss
chance of receiving a larger inheritance (if the court did not accept the loss of the business); they
indiquent à cet égard qu’elles sont les seules héritières légitimes de leur père, décédé en 2011, qu’elles ont donc droit à
58% de sa part de communauté sur le fonds de commerce et qu’eu égard à la consistance du patrimoine commun des
époux, il doit leur être alloué la totalité de l’indemnité à titre de provision sur leur part ;
Sur les frais engagés : ils sont justifiés par les factures d’avocats comprenant les recherches et déplacements pour
déterminer les responsabilités et il doit être tenu compte de la situation patrimoniale des demanderesses, l’une infirmière
en Belgique, l’autre informaticienne en Allemagne, en congé maternité.
La société Air France et la société Kenya Airways, en l’état de leurs dernières écritures signifiées le 3 octobre 2014,
concluent, sur la responsabilité, à l’infirmation du jugement en ce qu’il a retenu la responsabilité de la société Air France
et à la mise hors de cause de celle-ci et sur l’indemnisation, à son infirmation partielle, demandant à la cour, de :
Réformer le jugement en ce qu’il a alloué la somme de 15.000 euro au titre du préjudice moral de la victime et rejeter
this application,
Confirmer le jugement en ce qu’il a fait application du plafond de 1000 DTS pour l’indemnisation du préjudice matériel
of the victim,
Le confirmer en ce qu’il a rejeté la demande au titre de la perte de chance de survie de la victime,
Le confirmer sur les frais d’obsèques,
Reduce the claim for moral prejudice to the two daughters of Thérèse N. wife K.,
Confirmer le jugement en ce qu’il a rejeté leurs demandes de perte de secours et de subsides,
Le confirmer en ce qu’il a rejeté les demandes au titre de l’affaiblissement du patrimoine de la victime et de la perte de
chance to perceive a more significant inheritance,
Reject the request for loss of value of the business and, in the alternative, say that the fund had a
valeur de 127.000 euro et que la chance perdue n’excède pas 15% et dire que les demanderesses ne sont en droit de
claim that half the lost value,
Condamner in solidum Mme Victoire K. et Mme Anne-Aurélie K. à leur payer la somme de 5.000 euro en application des dispositions de l’article 700 du code de procédure civile et rejeter leur demande sur ce fondement tant à l’égard de la société Air France que de la société Kenya Airways.
Elles font valoir pour l’essentiel les moyens et arguments suivants :
On the responsibility of Air France: the plaintiffs sought its responsibility to validate the
compétence des juridictions françaises mais ne formulent de griefs que contre la société Kenya Airways ; c’est à bon
droit que le tribunal a retenu que l’arrêt de la cour n’avait pas autorité de chose jugée, son dispositif ne contenant aucune
provision on the status of contractual carrier of Air France; the only documentary evidence is the ticket
électronique lui-même et ses mentions selon lesquelles Air France n’est que l’émetteur alors que le transporteur
contractual and de facto is Kenya Airways (mention “carrier: KQ” and flight number “KQ507”); even if the
ticket was issued as part of the Flying Blue loyalty program, these are the partner's general conditions which
s’appliquent, donc celles de Kenya Airways qui est nécessairement le transporteur contractuel ; le document remis après
l’accident aux consorts K. et constituant leur pièce n°1 n’est pas pertinent pour apprécier la croyance de Thérèse N.
épouse K. dans la qualité de transporteur d’Air France et le fait qu’il ait été imprimé sur support papier Air France n’est
not convincing;
Sur l’action successorale de Mme Victoire K. et Mme Anne-Aurélie K. : les demanderesses ne justifient pas de la
possession d’argent liquide par Thérèse N. épouse K., subsidiairement il faut faire application de l’article 22 de la
Montreal Convention and limit repair to 1,000 SDR; the moral prejudice of the victim must be rejected because
de la soudaineté de l’accident et du décès instantané de celle-ci, le préjudice personnel n’étant dès lors pas né dans le
patrimoine du défunt lors de son décès ; le préjudice de perte de chance de survie n’est constitué que lorsque la victime
n’a pas reçu les soins nécessaires à son état, mais la soudaineté de l’accident permet d’écarter ce chef de préjudice ;
The applicants' prejudices: the claim for loss of assistance and subsidies must be rejected in the absence of
for the plaintiffs (aged 24 and 36 at the time of death) to demonstrate that their mother continued to provide
financially to their needs; the damage called weakening of the heritage or loss of value of the fund
commerce n’est pas indemnisable car il est purement hypothétique en ce qu’il revient à spéculer sur l’évolution du
patrimoine de la victime et sur la date de sa mort « naturelle » , étant rappelé que les héritiers n’ont aucun droit acquis
sur le patrimoine de leur parent dont celui-ci dispose librement ; au demeurant, le rapport d’expertise produit n’est pas
probant, en l’absence de connaissance des tentatives de revente du fonds ou de ses éléments d’actif, et en l’absence de
identification of elements of the local context influencing its assessment; alternatively, the respondents file a
ML report concluding that the fund can be estimated at 127,000 euros and the appellants cannot
prétendre qu’à la moitié de la valeur du fonds qui faisait partie de la communauté des époux K. qui n’est pas liquidée ;
Sur les frais : ils sont exorbitants alors que l’affaire ne présente pas de difficulté particulière puisque la responsabilité
objective de la société Kenya Airways n’a jamais été contestée ; en outre, les intimés ont proposé une offre
settlement after the judgment up to 95,000 euros, greater than the sums awarded by the court.
The proceedings were terminated by ordinance dated November 14, 2014.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
On the responsibility of the company Air France as a contractual carrier:
Considérant qu’en application des dispositions combinées des articles des articles 77 et 95 du code de procédure civile, c’est seulement lorsque le juge a, en se prononçant sur la compétence, tranché dans le dispositif du jugement la question de fond dont dépend cette compétence que sa décision a autorité de la chose jugée sur la question de fond ;
1. qu’en l’espèce, la cour d’appel, dans son arrêt du 12 janvier 2011, a, dans son dispositif, infirmé l’ordonnance du juge de la mise en état ayant déclaré les juridictions françaises internationalement incompétentes, et déclaré le tribunal de grande instance de Bobigny compétent pour statuer sur les demandes présentées par Mme Victoire K. et Mme Anne-Aurélie K. ;
2. que, certes, pour aboutir à cette décision, elle a considéré que, si la société Kenya Airways avait la qualité de transporteur de fait, la société Air France avait la qualité de transporteur contractuel ce qui justifiait le choix des demanderesses, sur le fondement de l’article 42 du code de procédure civile, d’assigner les défenderesses devant le tribunal de grande instance du lieu du siège social du transporteur contractuel ; mais que cette considération n’ayant pas été reprise dans le dispositif ne bénéficie pas de l’autorité de chose jugée attachée à la décision ;
Considering that:
Mme Victoire K. et Mme Anne-Aurélie K. soutiennent que la société Air France a la qualité de transporteur contractuel au sens de l’article 39 de la Convention de Montréal alors que la société Kenya Airways a celle de transporteur de fait, la première ayant vendu le billet à Thérèse N. épouse K. et conclu avec elle le contrat de transport, alors que c’est la seconde qui a effectué le vol ;
elles produisent aux débats pour en convaincre la cour, comme elles ont convaincu les premiers juges, le billet électronique qui a été édité par la société Air France, postérieurement à l’accident, sur un formulaire de carte d’embarquement Air France et qui comporte un numéro de billet 05721145889336 dont l’indicatif 057 correspond à la compagnie Air France ;
le tribunal a retenu que ce billet électronique constituait le document contractuel liant les parties et que la société Air France était le transporteur contractuel pour avoir vendu le billet lequel avait été payé, au moins pour partie, par des points de fidélité du programme Flying Blue et portait la référence Skyteam, et qu’il ne faisait aucune référence aux conditions IATA (Association du transport aérien) ni au MITA (Multilatéral Interline Traffic Agreements) liant les compagnies entre elles et qui auraient permis d’opposer à l’acheteuse du billet qu’Air France n’intervenait qu’en qualité d’agent de la société Kenya Airways ;
force est de constater que, si le « billet » produit par les ayants-droit de Thérèse N. épouse K. comporte les mentions « Air France » c’est en raison du simple fait qu’il a été édité, a posteriori, sur une carte d’embarquement de cette compagnie alors qu’il s’agissait en réalité d’un billet électronique ne comportant pas ces mentions ;
it cannot therefore be taken as an argument from this "ticket" to maintain that Thérèse N. wife K. could legitimately think of traveling with Air France;
le billet électronique mentionne qu’il est émis (issued by) par Air France (son numéro ne pouvant dès lors que commencer par l’indicatif 057) mais qu’il indique de manière très claire que le transport est effectué par la société Kenya Airways (carrier : KQ) sur un vol régulier (KG 0507);
son prix a été payé par l’utilisation de points de fidélité du programme Flying Blue qui permet au voyageur d’utiliser les Miles Flying Blue accumulés sur les vols de chacune des compagnies de l’Alliance Sky Team pour embarquer sur les vols de ces compagnies, parmi lesquelles se trouve la société Air France et la société Kenya Airways ;
l’utilisation par Thérèse N. épouse K. de ses points de fidélité Flying Blue n’est donc pas déterminante de la qualité de transporteur contractuel d’Air France, de même que la mention « Sky Team » sur le billet ;
certes, le billet électronique ne fait pas référence aux accords IATA et MITA – ce qui a amené le tribunal à considérer que la société Air France ne pouvait se prévaloir de la qualité d’agent du transporteur dont les services ont été vendus – mais qu’il a été émis en exécution du programme de fidélité dont les conditions sont parfaitement opposables à Thérèse N. épouse K. et qui prévoient que les primes et avantages obtenus sont soumis aux conditions générales du partenaire les fournissant ;
Thérèse N. épouse K. savait donc parfaitement qu’elle acquérait auprès du guichet Air France de Douala un billet Prime sur un vol effectué par la société Kenya Airways et répondant aux conditions générales de ce transporteur ;
il est d’ailleurs intéressant de noter à cet égard que tous les Miles Flying Blue acquis par Thérèse N. épouse K. l’avaient été sur des vols Kenya Airways depuis ou vers Douala ;
il convient en conséquence de considérer que l’émission par la société Air France d’un billet sur un vol Kenya AIRWAYS délivré en exécution du programme Flying Blue ne permet pas de retenir sa qualité de transporteur contractuel ;
le jugement sera donc réformé en ce qu’il a retenu que la responsabilité de la société Air France était engagée ;
On the responsibility of the company Kenya Airways and the compensation for the damages suffered:
Considérant qu’aux termes de l’article 17.1 de la Convention de Montréal, le transporteur est responsable du préjudice
survenu en cas de mort ou de lésion corporelle subie par un passager par cela seul que l’accident qui a causé la mort ou
la lésion s’est produit à bord de l’aéronef ou au cours de toutes opérations d’embarquement ou de débarquement ; que
l’article 21.1 prévoit que le transporteur ne peut exclure ou limiter sa responsabilité pour les dommages ne dépassant pas
100.000 droits de tirage spéciaux par passager et que l’article 21.2 ajoute qu’il n’est pas responsable pour les dommages
dépassant 100.000 droits de tirage spéciaux s’il prouve que le dommage n’est pas dû à la négligence ou à un autre acte
or harmful omission of the carrier, its agents or agents, or that the damage results
uniquement de la négligence ou d’un autre acte ou omission préjudiciable d’un tiers ;
That the court rightly noted that the death of Thérèse N. wife K. occurred during flight KQ 0507 of the
société Kenya Airways et que cette compagnie n’opposait aucune cause d’exonération au sens de l’article 21.2
susceptible d’exclure ou de limiter sa garantie ; qu’il sera donc confirmé en ce qu’il a condamné la société Kenya
Airways à réparer l’entier préjudice subi du fait du décès de la victime, sans aucune limitation de montant ;
Considérant que l’article 22.2 de la Convention de Montréal prévoit par ailleurs que, dans le transport de bagages, la
carrier's liability in the event of destruction, loss, damage or delay, is limited to the sum of 1,000 rights
tirage spéciaux (DTS) par passager, sauf déclaration spéciale d’intérêt à la livraison faite par le passager au moment de
delivery of checked baggage; that Kenya Airways will therefore be ordered to make good the material damage
suffered by the victim, subject to justification, within the limit of this ceiling, failing a special declaration to
boarding;
Considering that Mrs. Victoire K. and Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K. are admissible to act in compensation for both their damages
personal due to the death of their mother, than those suffered by her before her death and entered into her patrimony,
en leur qualité d’ayants-droit attestée par l’acte de notoriété produit aux débats ;
1- On the prejudices of Thérèse N. wife K.:
Non-pecuniary damage:
Considérant qu’il ressort du rapport d’enquête technique sur l’accident que:
l’avion s’est écrasé très rapidement après son envol puisqu’il a décollé à 0h06 et qu’il s’est écrasé à 0h07:42 ;
il n’en demeure pas moins que les passagers ont perçu la situation d’extrême danger dans laquelle ils se trouvaient en raison de la très mauvaise météo qui avait obligé le pilote à différer le départ, initialement prévu à 23h, et surtout en raison des mouvements de roulis et des angles d’inclinaison subis par l’appareil et faisant redouter le pire (roulis vers la droite, puis vers la gauche, puis à nouveau vers la droite avec angle d’inclinaison à 55° vers la droite à 0h07 :28, atteignant 70° à 0h07 :29 et 115° à 0h07 :35) dans le contexte d’un orage très violent, suivis d’une chute en piqué de 2800 pieds en quelques secondes ;
il n’est pas contestable que dans ces quelques instants, les passagers ont eu conscience du caractère inéluctable du crash qui allait intervenir et de leur mort imminente ;
this resulted for them, and in particular for Thérèse N. wife K., non-pecuniary damage which must receive compensation and which necessarily entered into her patrimony before her death;
ce préjudice a été justement évalué par le tribunal à la somme de 15.000 euro et que c’est en vain que les appelantes en sollicitent l’augmentation en invoquant l’existence de souffrances physiques avant le décès qui n’est pas démontrée et qui ne peut être retenue, le décès ne pouvant qu’avoir été immédiat compte tenu des conditions dans lesquelles l’avion s’est écrasé au sol et des constatations de l’enquête technique retenant que l’impact s’est produit à forte vitesse ;
Perte d’espérance de vie :
Considérant que le tribunal a justement rejeté toute indemnisation d’une perte de chance liée à l’espérance de vie de la
victime en retenant que cette dernière ne pouvait se prévaloir du droit de vivre jusqu’à un âge déterminé, compte tenu
des aléas et accidents de la vie ainsi que des fluctuations de l’état de santé de chacun interdisant que puisse exister un
acquired right entered into the heritage of the victim during his lifetime and transmissible to his heirs when his
décès ; que le seul préjudice réparable au titre de la perte de l’espérance de vie est celui né de la conscience ressentie par
la victime, avant son décès, du caractère abrégé de sa vie du fait de l’accident ou de la faute d’un tiers, c’est-à-dire le
préjudice moral lié à la conscience de l’imminence de son décès, déjà réparé dans le cadre du préjudice moral évalué
plus haut ; que si la notion de perte de chance de survie a pu être évoquée en jurisprudence, c’est à raison de la perte de
chance que peut subir une victime, en matière de responsabilité médicale, de survivre à son affection, en raison d’une
faute du professionnel de santé, mais qu’il ne s’agit jamais d’indemniser la victime de la perte d’un droit acquis à vivre ;
Material damage:
Considering that Mrs. Victoire K. and Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K. produce a certificate from MGK certifying that
Thérèse N. wife K., trader at the Douala central market, actively participated in tontine (a form of
convention d’épargne entre personnes plaçant leur argent en commun) dont il est le président et qu’elle avait retiré le 6
April 2007 a sum of ten million CFA francs (or about 14,600 euros) to make purchases
en Chine, comme à chacun de ses voyages d’affaires ; que cette attestation est confirmée par un témoin, M. K.,
also a member of the tontine;
That the appellants also disclose an extract from a bank account which shows that their mother had
also withdrawn, on April 4, 2007, a sum of 3,500,000 CFA francs in cash at the bank, which represents a
somme de l’ordre de 5.110 euro ;
Que s’il n’est pas possible de connaître précisément quelle était la somme que Thérèse N. épouse K. avait emportée dans ses effets personnels pour réaliser ses affaires en Chine, il ressort de ces pièces qu’elle transportait des fonds relativement importants en espèces, mais qu’elle n’avait fait aucune déclaration particulière auprès de la compagnie ; que dès lors c’est à bon droit que le tribunal a fait application des dispositions de l’article 22.2 de la convention de Montréal et condamné la société Kenya Airways à indemniser la victime à hauteur de la somme de 1000 DTS ;
Loss of goodwill:
Considérant que c’est en vain que Mme Victoire K. et Mme Anne-Aurélie K. réclament, dans le cadre leur action
estate as a party to the rights of Thérèse N. wife K., compensation for the financial loss resulting from the
perte du fonds de commerce de la victime, la disparition alléguée de ce fonds n’étant que la conséquence du décès et
étant donc survenue postérieurement à celui-ci, de sorte que le préjudice en résultant n’est pas entré dans le patrimoine
of the deceased;
2- On the own damages of the two appellants:
Non-pecuniary damage:
Whereas the court rightly assessed this position of prejudice by holding that the plaintiffs, aged 36
ans et de 24 ans, ne vivaient plus avec la victime depuis plusieurs années puisqu’elles résidaient en Belgique et en
Allemagne où l’une exerçait la profession d’infirmière alors que l’autre était encore étudiante mais en prenant en
considerations the particular circumstances of the disappearance of their mother due to its disaster dimension
collective, à l’attente de la famille après l’annonce de l’accident jusqu’à la découverte des restes de l’avion et
l’identification des corps, à l’éloignement géographique des deux filles, aux délais de rapatriement de la dépouille et à
l’angoisse liée à la méconnaissance, pendant plusieurs années, des conclusions de l’enquête technique et des raisons de
l’accident ; que la fixation de l’indemnité à la somme de 25.000 euro pour chacune d’elles prend en compte l’ensemble de
these items and will be confirmed;
Economic damage:
Considering that the court accepted as justified only the sum of 1,438.81 euros corresponding to the total of
deux billets d’avion produits aux débats, l’un au nom de Xavier G. entre le 17 mai et le 24 mai 2007, l’autre au nom
d’Annie-Aurélie entre le 25 octobre et le 9 novembre 2007 ; que, certes, les appelantes ne produisent pas les justificatifs
des autres voyages qu’elles ont effectués entre Paris ou Bruxelles et Douala, mais qu’il ressort des témoignages qu’elles
se sont déplacées à trois reprises au Cameroun, dans les suites immédiates de l’accident en mai 2007, puis lors de la
levée de corps en fin octobre 2007 et des obsèques en janvier 2008 ; qu’il convient de les indemniser de ces frais en leur
allocating the sum of 5,000 euros;
Loss of aid and subsidies:
Considérant que si Mme Anne-Aurélie K., alors âgée de 36 ans, exerçait la profession d’infirmière en Belgique au moment du décès de sa mère et ne justifie pas avoir reçu de cette dernière des secours et subsides, il en est différemment de la seconde fille de la victime, Mme Victoire K. qui, âgée de 24 ans, était encore étudiante en informatique en Allemagne et qui justifie, par la production de l’attestation de M. T. K., que sa mère lui adressait, de manière ponctuelle, une aide financière de l’ordre de 4.500 à 6.000 euro ; que force est toutefois de constater que rien n’indique, dans cette attestation, la fréquence de ces aides et qu’il apparaît que Mme Victoire K. a terminé ses études en 2008 ; qu’il convient en conséquence de fixer à la somme de 15.000 euro le montant du préjudice économique résultant pour elle de la perte des aides de sa mère pendant la fin de ses études ; que la demande de Mme Anne-Aurélie K. de ce chef sera par contre rejetée ;
Loss of chance of receiving a larger inheritance:
Considérant que Mme Victoire K. et Mme Anne-Aurélie K. réclament, à défaut d’indemnisation de la perte du fonds de
commerce dans le cadre de l’action successorale, l’indemnisation du préjudice résultant pour elles de l’affaiblissement du
patrimoine dont elles ont hérité à raison de la disparition du fonds de commerce de leur mère ; qu’elles produisent aux
debates an accounting report from the CSA firm to Levallois Perret who, in the light of the accounting documents produced,
estimated the economic value of the business operated by Thérèse N. wife K. at 256,551 euros and they claim
l’indemnisation de leur préjudice à hauteur de cette somme ;
Qu’il convient toutefois de considérer, d’une part que les héritiers n’ont pas un droit acquis sur le patrimoine de leur
auteur qui en dispose librement et dont la teneur et la valeur sont susceptibles d’évolution en plus ou moins-value tout au
long de la vie de celui-ci et jusqu’à son décès, d’autre part que les appelantes ne justifient pas du devenir du fonds de
commerce de leur mère après l’accident, n’apportant aucun élément sur l’éventuelle revente du fonds ou de ses éléments
d’actif, droit au bail et stocks, alors qu’il ressort du jugement du tribunal de première instance de Douala du 15 octobre
2007 that Ms. Anne-Aurélie K. had been appointed administrator of the estate's assets, including the business
de la défunte dont il était prévu que soit fait l’inventaire ;
That Ms. Victoire K. and Ms. Anne-Aurélie K. will therefore be dismissed from their request on this account;
Sur la demande formée au titre de l’article 700 du code de procédure civile :
Considérant qu’aux termes de l’article 700 du code de procédure civile, le juge condamne la partie tenue aux dépens à
payer à l’autre partie la somme qu’il détermine au titre des frais exposés et non compris dans les dépens, en tenant
compte de l’équité ou de la situation économique de la partie condamnée ; que parmi ces frais dénommés irrépétibles se
trouvent les honoraires d’avocat et d’experts amiables ;
Que Mme Victoire K. et Mme Anne-Aurélie K. font état de factures d’avocat réglées à hauteur de 5.000 euro en mai
2007 et de 71.985 euro entre juin 2007 et janvier 2012 correspondant à la première instance, puis d’une note
d’honoraires de 5.474 euro pour la période de janvier à octobre 2013 et une provision de 25.000 euro en décembre 2013
correspondant à l’appel, enfin une note d’honoraires du cabinet W., avocat au conseil, d’un montant de 3.588 euro ;
qu’elles produisent également une facture d’honoraires du cabinet CSA d’un montant de 1.800 euro ;
Qu’il n’appartient pas à la juridiction de porter quelque appréciation que ce soit sur le montant des honoraires d’avocat
invoiced, any disputes and complaints under this head falling under the provisions of articles 175 and following of the
décret du 27 novembre 1991, mais qu’il lui revient, indépendamment des factures produites, d’évaluer, au regard des
frais justifiés par les nécessités du dossier et en considération des éléments d’équité, le montant de l’indemnité mise à la
charge of the unsuccessful party;
Qu’il y a lieu de fixer cette indemnité à la somme de 15.000 euro en première instance et à celle de 10.000 euro en cause d’appel ;
Vu l’article 696 du code de procédure civile,
FOR THESE REASONS,
Ruling publicly, contradictorily,
Infirme le jugement déféré en ce qu’il a déclaré la société Air France responsable des conséquences dommageables de
l’accident d’aéronef survenu le 5 mai 2007 ayant provoqué le décès de Thérèse N. épouse K. et en ce qu’il l’a condamnée
au paiement de diverses sommes à titre de dommages et intérêts, d’indemnités et de dépens, et met la société Air France
harmless ;
L’infirme en ce qu’il a débouté Mme Victoire K. de sa demande d’indemnisation au titre de la perte de secours et
subsides et en ce qu’il a limité à la somme de 1.538,81 euro le montant du préjudice économique résultant des frais
d’obsèques, de voyage et de séjour et, statuant à nouveau sur ces points, condamne la société Kenya Airways à payer :
A Mme Victoire K., à titre personnel, la somme de 15.000 euro en réparation du préjudice résultant de la perte d’aide
financial support from his mother during the end of his studies,
A Mme Victoire K. et Mme Anne-Aurélie K. ensemble, la somme de 5.000 euro au titre des frais d’obsèques, de voyage
and stay;
L’infirme également sur le quantum de l’indemnité allouée en application des dispositions de l’article 700 du code de
civil procedure and condemns the company Kenya Airways to pay to Mrs. Victoire K. and Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K. together
une somme de 15.000 euro en application des dispositions de l’article 700 du code de procédure civile au titre de la
first case ;
Confirms this for the remainder of its provisions;
Adding to it,
Condemns the company Kenya Airways to pay to Mrs. Victoire K. and Mrs. Anne-Aurélie K. the sum of 10,000 euros in
application des dispositions de l’article 700 du code de procédure civile en cause d’appel ;
La condamne aux dépens d’appel lesquels seront recouvrés dans les conditions de l’article 699 du code de procédure
civil.
THE CLERK THE PRESIDENT
Investigation of the damages paid to the Chinese victims of the KQ 507 crash of Kenya Airways on May 4, 2007 (Fr)
Research carried out by JIANG Yanwei, graduated with a law degree from the University of Wuhan in China and a master's degree in business law from Paris X University in France, for the law firm of Weissberg
Le 4 mai 2007, le vol Kenya Airways KQ 507 s’est écrasé peu après son décollage à Douala, au Cameroun.
Il y avait 145 passagers, qui ont tous été tués dans l’accident. Le rapport de l’accident de l’Autorité Aérienne
Canadienne commissionné par le gouvernement du Cameroun a conclu que l’accident était à 100% en
because of the gross fault of the pilots, and the failure to respect all the basic aviation rules.
La compagnie d’assurance de Kenya Airways a négocié une indemnisation avec la famille des victimes aux
niveaux différents selon les nationalités, les professions, les revenus et le nombre d’enfants et de parents
dependent on victims.
Parmi toutes les victimes, il y avait 5 citoyens chinois, tous en provenance du Cameroun pour rentrer en Chine, plus précisément, tous de retour de la Côte-d’Ivoire ou du Cameroun pour la Chine. Dans le cas de ces victimes, l’assureur a négocié globalement avec le gouvernement chinois plutôt que de négocier individuellement avec chaque victime. Voici la liste des 5 passagers chinois, leurs coordonnées et le montant des indemnités qu’ils ont reçu:
Table of victims
LAST NAME
Mr. LIU
Sheng
Mr. JIANG
Xuedong
M. BIAN
Jingzhong
Ms. SHI
Weisha
Mr. WU
Changgen
PLACE OF BIRTH
Jiangdu, the
Province of
JIANGSU,
CHINA.
The village
from YINTUO,
The
Commune
YIQUAN,
DONGGAN
G City,
Province
of
LIAONING,
CHINA
Shanghai,
CHINA
N / A
The City of SUZHOU,
the Province of
JIANGSU,
CHINA
STATE
CIVIL
single
married
married
(husband of
Ms. SHI
Weisha)
married
(wife of
M. BIAN
Jingzhong)
married
CHILDREN
no
One of 12
years
N / A
N / A
A
ADDRESS
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
AGE
29
36
N / A
N / A
53
ACTIVITY
Director of sales of the South Africa Provision of HUAWEI TECHNOLO GY CO.
Batelier, LULU Fisheries Company, Côte- d’Ivoire
Commerçant à Abidjan, Côte- d’Ivoire
Commerçante à Abidjan, Côte- d’Ivoire
Trader looking for business opportunities in Africa
Table of victims (continued)
RETURNED
300 000
RMB / year
(about
35 000
Euros / year)
100 000-
200 000
RMB / year
(about
12,000 to
17 000
euros / year)
Insurance
of
accidents
transport
subscribed
by
HUAWEI at
name of all
its employees
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
AGREEMENT
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
TAXATION
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
AUTHORITY INVOLVED IN THE NEGOTIATIONS
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
Voir l’article
Request for damages awarded to victims of Chinese nationality in the Air France AF447 crash of June 1, 2009 (Fr)
Research carried out by JIANG Yanwei, graduated with a law degree from the University of Wuhan in China and a master's degree in business law from the University Paris X in France, for the Law Firm Weissberg, lawyer at the court.
Introduction
On June 1, 2009 Flight AF447 of the French airline AIR France between Rio de Janeiro and Paris was damaged in the Atlantic Ocean.
It was carrying 228 people (including 216 passengers) while no sign of survival has been revealed until today.
Le rapport final du BEA (Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la Sécurité de l’Aviation civile) publié le 5 juillet 2012 après la récupération et l’analyse des enregistreurs a conclu que la cause principale de l’accident serait un décrochage en haute altitude consécutif à une perte des indications de vitesse par givrage des sondes Pitot, ayant induit une réaction inappropriée des pilotes.
Table of victims
Among all the victims, there were 9 Chinese citizens, for each of whom compensation of 126,000 euros was paid to their families. Here is a list of these 9 Chinese passengers, their contact details, and the amount of compensation they received:
LAST NAME
Mr. ZHUO
Jiachun
M. CHEN
Qingwei
Mr. XIAO Xiang
Mr. LI
Mingwen
Mr.
ZHANG
Qingbo
INSTEAD OF
BIRTH
Shanghai,
China
The
province
of
Zhejiang,
China
The province of
Jiangxi, China
N / A
N / A
CIVIL STATUS
married since
less than a year
single
married
married
married
CHILDREN
No
no
1, very young
1, 18 years old
1
ADDRESS
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
AGE
27
35
35
44
54
ACTIVITY
Employee of HUAWEI TECHNOLOGY CO.
Investor in Brazil
Searcher
assistant in
the Institute of
Engineering
Thermophysics
, the Academy
Chinese
Sciences,
China
Director
General
Deputy
of the
Benxi
Iron and
Steel
Group
Company
,
China
Assistant to the General Manager of the Benxi Iron and Steel Group Company, China
RETURNED
About
200,000 -
300,000 RMB /
year (either
25 000-33 000
euros)
About
50,000 -
100 000
dollars / year
(is
45 000-
95 000
euros)
About
100,000 -
150,000 RMB
(i.e. 12,000-
17,000 euros)
178 700
RMB
(is
about
20 000
euros)
About
150 000
RMB
(20 000
euros)
INDEMNITY
126,000 euros
126 000
euros
126,000 euros
126 000
euros
126 000
euros
CONTRACTUAL FORM
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
AGREEMENT
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
TAXATION
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
AUTHORITIES
COMMITTED
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
LAST NAME
M. SUN
lianyou
Mr. SHEN
Zuobing
Ms. GAO
Xing
Ms. CHEN Chiping
INSTEAD OF
BIRTH
N / A
N / A
N / A
Benxi, the province of
Liaoning
CIVIL STATUS
N / A
N / A
N / A
Bride (wife of
deputy governor of
the province of
Liaoning, China)
CHILDREN
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
ADDRESS
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
AGE
49
A
quarantine
years
39
About 53 years
PROFESSION
Director of
the
Ironmaking
Factory of
Benxi Iron
and Steel
Group
Company,
China
Director of
department
of
fuels
Benxi
Iron and
Steel Group
Company,
China
Director of
department
responsible for
trades
commercial
international
Benxi
Iron and steel
Group
Company,
China
Deputy Director of
responsible department
Exchanges
commercial
international
Benxi iron and steel
Group Company,
China
RETURNED
About
200 000
RMB
About 200,000 RMB (22,500 euros)
About 200,000 RMB (22,500 euros)
About 170,000 RMB
(20,000 euros)
INDEMNITY
126 000
euros
126 000
euros
126 000
euros
126,000 euros
FORM
CONTRACTUAL
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
AGREEMENT
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
TAXATION
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
AUTHORITIES ENGAGED
N / A
N / A
N / A
N / A
L’article
A guide to exporting to Europe (En)
INTRODUCTION
Europe today consists of the Member States of the European Union (EU), the Member States
of the European Free Trade Area (EFTA), and the Central and Eastern European States most
of which were, until recently, under the political, economic, and military umbrella of the
form the Soviet Union.
This paper outlines what the potential corporate investor or exporter of goods and services
must know of the EU and describes the general aspects of doing business in France.
The EUROPEAN UNION (EU)
The fifteen current Member States of the EU are France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Luxembourg, Italy, Ireland,
Austria, Finland and Sweden. The EU was initially called European Economic Community
(EEC). The basic principles of the Economic Union, known as the “Four Freedoms”, set up a
uniform economic area free from distortions in competition and thus free from customs
barriers within the Member States. The “Four Freedoms” are the free movement of goods,
persons, services and capital. The Treaty of Maastricht dated February 7th, 1992 organized
economic and monetary union, unanimity in foreign policy and cooperation in defense among
the Member States. In May 1999, the Treaty of Amsterdam added significant improvements
on social and employment matters, to the Treaty of Maastricht.
The EUROPEAN FREE TRADE AREA (EFTA)
The current Member States of EFTA are, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.
EFTA essentially creates a “privileged” trade area and is not in any sense an economic or
political union. This organization has nonetheless concluded some conventions with EU,
namely on jurisdiction, free trade relationship (excepted Switzerland).
It is worth noting that a number of current EEC Member States were previously members of EFTA and that the extension of the EU will probably lead to the disappearance of the EFTA.
THE FORTHCOMING ACCESSION OF THE CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN STATES
The accession of new Member States will enhance the Union’s international influence.
Although economic and political realities in these countries are often very different, the Union
will certainly prove its ability to merge the economic interests of nations with a long common
history of exchanges.
With accession of Central and Eastern Europe countries, as well as Malta, Turkey and Cyprus,
the EU’s population could rise by 25% to 500 million but its total GDP would grow no more
than 5%.
The Copenhagen European Council started the pre-accession process in 1993. Negotiations
started in 1998 with a first wave of 6 countries: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,
Poland, Slovenia. This has been followed by a second wave of 5 countries: Bulgaria, Latvia,
Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia.
The Copenhagen European Council defined the criteria which applicants would have to meet
before joining the EU: Stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, existence of a
functioning market economy, adherence to the aims of political / economic and monetary
union.
The PHARE program is the pivotal financial instrument in the pre-accession strategy. ECU 21
billion are to be provided to the Central and Eastern European Countries for the period 2000-
2006. 30% are to be allocated to the reinforcement of the applicant’s administration and
institutions, 70% in investment financing.
Lately, the Berlin European Council (March 1999) set up 2 pre-accession instruments: A
structural instrument (ISPA) and an agricultural one (SAPARD). This European Council
decided to double pre-accession aid from 2000.
TRANSATLANTIC ECONOMIC RELATIONS
The EU and the U.S are each other’s single largest trading partner : In 1997, they traded goods
worth ECU 277,000 million, around 20% of their total world trade. High added value goods
like high-tech products account for 20% of this transatlantic trade. The EU and the US have
by far the world’s most important bilateral investment relationship and are each other’s most
important source and destination for Foreign Direct Investment. 51% of FDI stocks in the EU
originate in the US
The WTO is the scene where the EU and the US can exercise considerable influence on
global trade & investment (FDI). In this context, the EU and the US have worked together to
conclude the Information Technology Agreement and the Basic Telecommunication Services
Agreement, which together liberalize approximately one trillion ECU in trade in goods and
services and most recently, the Financial Services Agreement.
Recently, the EU and the US went further in their attempts to enhance a closer economic co-
surgery. Despite many efforts on both side, a number of barriers, mainly of a non-tariff kind
continue to hamper Transatlantic Trade. It was with this mind that the European Commission
made a proposal in March 1998 on the creation of a New Transatlantic Marketplace (NTM).
This led the EU and the US to agree to the launching of the Transatlantic Economic
Partnership (TEP) at the 18 May 1998 EU / US summit in London.
I. GENERAL COMMENTS CONCERNING THE EU
A. From The Treaty of Rome to the Treaty of Maastricht
The European Economic Community (EEC) came into existence following the signing of the
Treaty of Rome in 1957 by the six original Member States. The principal object of the Treaty
was the creation of a single unified market within its Member States. The United Kingdom,
Denmark, and the Republic of Ireland acceded to the Community in 1973, Greece in 1979,
Spain and Portugal in 1986 and Austria, Sweden and Finland in 1996.
The Treaty of Rome is essentially an agreement of principle. For the fulfillment of its objective, it specifically envisages the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital within the Member States.
The Treaty also defines and creates the institutions charged with the duties of managing, controlling and implementing the numerous steps required to result in the creation of a single European market.
The idea of a single market, as envisaged in 1957, has been taken substantially further by the Single European Act of 1986 entered into among the Member States and which envisages close economic and monetary cooperation as well as a close harmonization of social, scientific, technological and environmental policies.
Under the Treaty of Maastricht ratified by the Member States on February 7th, 1992, the EEC
was replaced by the European Union, characterized by economic and monetary union, and
common policy in matters of justice, security and foreign affairs. The Member States also
planned the creation of a common currency named “Euro” which has entered into circulation
in 1999.
Remark: The Treaty of Rome is still in existence.
B. The Institutions of the EU
The Institutions are:
Parliament,
Commission,
European Court of Justice,
Economic and Social Committee
With the Treaty of Maastricht the European Monetary Institute,
European Central Bank and
European Central Bank system.
at. The Parliament
The European Parliament, also called the Assembly, is located in the Franco-German border
town of Strasbourg. It is charged under the Treaty of Rome with mainly advisory and
supervisory responsibilities, and was not intended as a legislative body even though it
assumes a substantial part in the legislative process and has recently been given veto powers
over certain aspects of the EU budget. The Parliament has an advisory role under the Treaty
of Rome but the Council has no obligation to follow its advice, although its powers have been
strengthened in the Treaty of Maastricht and in the Amsterdam Treaty.
b. The Council
The Council consists of representatives of the Member States (one for each State) and is
ensuring that the objectives of the Treaty of Rome are fulfilled. The Council is not a
permanent body, its members having full-time responsibilities in their States either as
ministers or as civil servants and meeting only a few days a month.
vs. The European Commission
It has been described as the “guardian” of the Treaty.
The Commission consists of twenty members (two from each of the four biggest members and Spain, and one from each of the other States).
The European Commission has three functions.
First it is the promoter of Union's action, with respect, for instance, to its role in the enactment of the directives.
Secondly, it is the Union's watchdog and
Thirdly, it functions as the executive of the EU. It is worth noting in particular that competition policy is enforced solely by the Commission.
d. The European Court of Justice
The European Court of Justice is in charge of the interpretation and application of
Community law. It is the supreme authority on all matters of Community Law. Issues are
brought before it by the national courts of the Member States or by the Member States
themselves, following specific proceedings.
The case law of the European Court of Justice today is a fundamental source of law not only
in the scope of the treaties but also in Human Rights field: its creative role has permitted to
compensate the non-adhesion of the EU to the European Human Rights Convention as
independent entity towards its Member States (although the current negotiations aim at this
purpose).
e. Economic and Social Committee
The Economic and Social Committee has a consultative role in the EU decision-making
process. It members are appointed by the Council in their personal capacity and represent a
variety of interests such as farmers, workers, trade unionists and consumers.
f. The Comity of Regions
It includes 222 members and does represent the regional and local entities of the EU. Before
any decision, the Council and Commission are under the obligation to consult the Comity of
Regions.
g. Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)
The Economic and Monetary Union has been brought into operation in January 1999. Its
three corner stones are a close coordination of the States' economic policies, a unique
currency (the “Euro”), and an irrevocable fixing of the rates of exchange.
On 2 May 1998, the Council of the EU unanimously decided that 11 Member States fulfilled
the necessary conditions for the adoption of the single currency on the 1st of January 1999.
These States are: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,
The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Denmark, Greece and Sweden. The UK has not joined the
EURO for the time being.
The European Central Bank (ECB) was created on the 1st of June 1998. It is partially
independent. Its primary goal is price stability which should be gained through low interest
rates, strong investment growth, high economic growth and employment policy.
The Global Economy has welcomed a new stabilizing force and Europe trading partners
among which the US is most important, has gained from increased transparency, lower costs
and great predictability in the EU market.
C. Legislative Acts
The legislative acts of the EU institutions are “regulations, directives and decisions”.
– A “regulation” has general application; it is binding and immediately applicable in all
Member States.
– A “directive” is also binding but only after a certain period of time during which it is left to
each
Member State to which it is addressed to choose the form and method of its implementation.
– A “decision” is immediately binding upon those to whom it is addressed.
Apart from the legislative act stricto sensu, EU institutions can make “recommendations” or
“opinions” which have very substantial persuasive authority.
D. The Common Market
As mentioned above the Treaty of Rome envisages the creation of a single market through the
free movement goods, services, persons and capital within the Community. Each of these
“four freedoms” will be addressed briefly below:
at. The Free Movement of Goods
The objective of this “freedom” is to establish a tariff-free union between Member States
through the abolition of customs duties on exports and imports between them and the
adoption of a common customs tariff towards non-Member States, and the elimination of
quantitative restrictions of imports to and exports from the Member States. Thus, if a US
company establishes a presence in a Member State, that presence will be able to benefit from
this “freedom” instead of being subject to a diversified range of customs, duties and import
restrictions otherwise applicable.
“Goods” covers both industrial and agricultural products whether originating within Member
States or coming from third countries already in free circulation within the Community. It
also applies to Community patents; by registering a patent within a Member State, its
registration is deemed to have been made within all Member States.
b. The Free Movement of Services
This “freedom” consists of no restriction policy on the movement of services within Member
States.
Services include insurance, banking and other financial services, legal services, accounting
services, etc. To this end, directives have already been enacted in relation to investments,
insurance, banking and financial and legal services.
However, given that each Member State is free to choose its method of implementation of the
directive, substantial differences in application exist to date although it is envisaged that the
differences will gradually disappear over time.
vs. The Free Movement of Persons
This “freedom” has substantial social importance within the Community. It establishes the
rights of nationals of Member States and certain members of their family to move and
establish themselves freely within the Member States. The freedom includes the rights to
employment (with current exemptions in relation to employment in Public Service) under the
non-discrimination principle: it namely involves the right to benefit from any social
advantage initially reserved to the Nationals.
d. The Free Movement of Capital
It is probably obvious that for there to be an unified market place there must be a free
movement of capital. In this respect, this freedom envisages the abolition of restrictions of
capital flows within the community.
In summary, the Union offers its Member States as well as all entities and individuals
established within it, very substantial benefits. The purpose of the Union, which is to create
an Economic and Monetary Union, is motivated by the desire to obtain a competitive
advantage toward non-Member States and individuals.
e. The “Schengen” Agreements (“Accords de Schengen”)
The application of the four freedoms mentioned above involves the suppression of the controls
at the interior frontiers of the European Member States. As a result, the controls must be
transferred to the external frontiers of the EU, accompanied by common rules concerning for
instance drugs, weapons ..
The Schengen Agreement, dated June 19, 1990, has been signed between some of the Member
States in order to solve these difficulties. United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden,
Austria and Finland are still not signatories of the Agreement, whereas Greece and Italy do
not comply yet with all of its conditions.
As a matter of fact, the Member States chose not to act under the authority of the EU.
However, the Schengen Agreement has to comply with the regulations of the EU Treaties
(Treaty of Rome, Treaty of Maastricht,…)
The Agreement provides for the lifting of the controls of the interior frontiers, the
harmonization of the rules concerning the entry and the circulation of persons and goods
within the EU, the right of sanctuary…
It establishes a judiciary and Police cooperation among the Member States as well as an
exchange of information (“Schengen Information System”).
II. ESTABLISHING IN France
A US company establishing a presence in any one of the EU Member States will be able to
benefit from the freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and people within the EU.
The economic opportunities, enhanced by numerous incentive schemes and the large choice
of legal structures available make France an ideal choice when deciding the country in which
to establish a presence. French legislators have simplified administrative formalities in order
to bring French business practice more in keeping with principles shared by the world
community. The French business environment is similar to that elsewhere in the developed
world today, with further particular attractions.
A. Different Forms of Presence
International companies setting up in France benefit from a secure legal framework. They can
select those best suited to their position and commercial strategy at every stage, from
prospecting to business expansion.
1. First stage: the basic setting-up
at. Setting up without officially registered representation
A foreign company can rent an office or set up operations at a business-service center and
open to non-resident bank account. Once the company has its own premises and / or employs
two or more people in France, it must be officially represented by a registered liaison office, a
branch or a subsidiary.
b. The liaison office: Exempt from corporate income tax and VAT
A company whose activities in France are not of a commercial nature, being limited to
advertising, the supply of information, storage or any other preliminary operation, may be
represented by a liaison office. Registration is with the trade register
and Companies).
vs. Branch offices: A good temporary arrangement.
Branches are considered permanent establishments for tax purposes, and are subject to
corporate income tax and VAT. It is quicker and less expensive to set up a branch office than
a subsidiary. The branch operates under the authority of company headquarters. It is not a
separate legal entity. They are thus drawbacks, for example, in the event of financial
difficulties: the company will have unlimited liability for the debts of the branch office.
It may thus be preferable to set up a separate entity in order to shield the mother company
from direct liability exposure and also, to benefit from State aid, tax exemptions, taxation of
intra-group transactions. As a result, it is a generally advised to create a subsidiary.
2. The setting-up of a limited liability type of company
A US corporation contemplating the establishment of a limited liability company in France
should be aware of the different types and characteristics of French limited liability entities.
French business entities fall into one of two categories: partnerships, which
approximate to U.S. partnerships and sociétés de capitaux in which the shareholders’ liability
is limited to the amount of their respective subscription.
Under French law, there are four types of partnerships: general partnership
(SNC) (general partnership); limited partnership (partnership with limited and general
partners); civil partnership and undisclosed
partnership).
Most business entities in France are characterized by the limited liability of its shareholders.
Under French law, there are five such entities: société anonyme (SA) (joint stock
corporation), simplified joint stock corporation (SAS),
limited liability company (limited liability company) limited partnership with shares
(limited partnership with shares), rarely used, and sole proprietorship
limited (EURL) (incorporated sole proprietorship). Brief comments in relation to each of
these legal entities are set out below.
(a) Société Anonyme (SA)
The French legal form closest to the US corporation is the société anonyme (SA). Its share
capital (250,000 FF minimum) must be held by at least seven shareholders, who meet at least
once a year to approve its financial statements and to decide whether profits will be
distributed or retained, or both. Day-to-day management is delegated to:
(1) A Board of Directors (Conseil d’administration) which elects its chairman (Président), who is also often the Managing Director (Directeur Général), its Chief Executive Officer, or (2) A Supervisory Council, which appoints a management committee (Directoire).
Simple majority rules apply during annual shareholder’s meeting. If major decisions have to
be made, such as a merger or a change in the articles of association, an extraordinary
shareholder’s meeting must be convened, and qualified majority rules apply.
(b) Simplified Limited Company (SAS)
The SAS was created in France in 1994 to attract investments. It is a flexible limited liability
company in which the division of powers, nomination of directors and mode of operations are
freely determined by the by-laws. Since 1999, the minimum capital required is of 250,000 FF
and the requirement that the shareholders must be legal entities has been removed. One
shareholder only is enough to create a SAS.
This modification of the SAS’ regime is meant to promote the setting up of New Technology
start-ups.
The SAS makes it possible for these entrepreneurs to arrange a flexible legal structure adapted
to a highly competitive and evolving business area.
(c) Limited Liability Company (SARL)
The characteristics of the SARL are the following:
- it does not have a Board of Directors but a manager who need not be a shareholder;
- the minimum share capital is FF 50,000;
- it must have a minimum of two shareholders and a maximum of 50;
- the qualified majority rule is three-fourths;
- If the manager hired is not a citizen of an EU member State, application must be made for a
business permit (carte de commerçant), either through the French Consulate in the person’s
home country or through the local administrative authority in which the company is to locate
its registered office.
(d) One Person Company with Limited Liability (EURL)
Popular among foreign investors because it requires only one shareholder, the EURL operates
like a SARL.
It permits the sole owner of a business to limit its liability for business debts only to the extent
of the amount of the capital. The sole shareholder may either be an individual or a legal entity.
In the latter case, the EURL is automatically subject to corporate income tax at normal rate.
In addition, while an individual may be shareholder of only one EURL, the number of
EURL’s held by a company is not limited. The EURL is managed by a gérant who must be an
individual but needs not to be the shareholder. In other respects, the rules of the SARL apply
to the EURL.
Hence, the EURL form may also appear to be a convenient legal vehicle for the American
investor who wishes either to create a subsidiary in France whose business does not
immediately necessitate the incorporation of an SA, or to acquire 100 % of the capital of an
existing SARL.
3. French Partnerships and Similar Structures and Non-corporate Contractual
Arrangements
These consist of:
(a) General partnership (SNC)
This is the most common form of partnership, equivalent to a US general partnership. Its partners are jointly and collectively liable for all debts and obligations incurred in as much as they are considered to be merchants. SNC are often used because of their flexibility (no minimum capital, no board of directors, possibility of dividend rights and capital contributions). The contract nature of SNC tax status (ie transparency) also makes this structure attractive under certain circumstances.
(b) Groupement d’intérêt commun (GIE)
The GIE is essentially a joint venture with a legal personality of its own. The rules governing it and its members, its day-to-day management and profit-and-loss allocation are set forth in an agreement signed by its members. Transparent for tax purposes, the GIE structure tends to be the favored in ventures in large-scale industrial projects, research and development, joint sales and exports, or purchasing activities conducted on behalf of members.
4. Distributorship Agreements
Distribution of goods or services may be achieved through any of established means:
- Distributorship agreement
- Commercial agency agreement
- Franchise agreement
(a) Distributorship Agreement
This type of agreement is a purchase-and-sale agreement whereby the distributor is
remunerated for its services by a gross margin on sales. The conditions of the agreement may
be negotiated freely, subject to relevant EU and domestic competition laws. It must be
determined whether the agreement is on an exclusive or non-exclusive basis, for a specific or
undetermined territory, for a limited or unlimited period of time.
A distributor has no basic title to the manufacturer’s clientele. As a result, the termination of a
pure distributorship agreement does not trigger severance payment and damages, except for
abrupt termination.
The grantor can unilaterally terminate the distributorship agreement. But he may be obliged to
assume liability for the employees of the distributor. As a general matter of labor law, in the
event of a “modification” of the juridical situation of an employer, notably as a result of a take
over, sale, merger, or transformation of its going concern or incorporation, all employee
contracts in effect at the time of such modification remain in effect as between the new
employer and the staff of the company. This provision of labor law has been interpreted
by the courts to apply to a modification consisting of the non-renewal by a grantor of a
distributorship agreement and his decision to commercialize his products directly; in such
circumstances grantors have been obliged to either take over the employment of the
employees hired by the distributors to sell grantor’s products or pay severance indemnities to
the employees on the basis of an unjustified termination of their employment contract (Art. L
122-12 of the labor law code).
(b) Commercial Agency Agreement
This is the most common form of distributorship agreement used in France. The commercial
agent is an independent contractor who takes orders from customers on behalf of the principal
and receives a commission expressed as a percentage of sales in consideration for its services.
The agent must be registered with the office of commercial court and must hold a commercial
card. It must also register with the State welfare agency and contract for a retirement plan, as
well as a medical plan. The commercial agent is entitled to damages for breach or termination
of contract, which can amount to as much as two years of anticipated commissions. Some
commercial agency agreements contain clauses.
(c) Franchise Agreement
This is a contractual arrangement between the owner (the franchiser) of a marketing process
and
corresponding products and several retailers (the franchisees). The arrangement included:
- distribution of products by franchisees;
- licensing of trademarks and protected know-how; and
- marketing and sales services. If the arrangements provide for the assignment of trademarks,
the contracts must be registered with the French National Institute of Industrial Property
(INPI).
5. Joint Ventures in France
A joint venture may be described as an agreement of cooperation between independent parties
(often, but not always, of similar economic weight) who enter into a common objective
whether for profit or otherwise.
A joint venture may be materialized by a simple contractual relationship, a partnership
agreement or a joint corporation. Joint ventures which result in a common entity are organized
either in the form of a partnership or in a form of a corporation. Joint venture contracts
provide great flexibility to the parties by avoiding the burdens inherent in setting up a separate
legal entity. However, limits to the contractual freedom are sometimes imposed by public
policy rules relevant to the place where the contract is to be performed or to the nature of its
purpose.
B. Investment Incentives Available:
To stimulate industrial development, the French government and local authorities have
implemented a wide range of financial incentives specifically tailored to industrial research
and development. These programs are often supervised by the Community. A foreign investor
can benefit from investment aids created in order to promote and maintain employment by the
reorganization or reorientation of industries experiencing economic difficulties. The various
incentive programs available in France are frequently coordinated at the national level by the
Délégation à l’Aménagement du Territoire et à l’Action Régionale (DATAR) and at the local
level by the municipalities. Thus, for example;
1. The “Prime d’Aménagement du Territoire” (P.A.T) granted by the DATAR.
DATAR provides grants to finance up to 33% of a given investment in land, buildings and / or
equipment purchased during the first three years of operation. The criteria to be eligible
include site selection, the number of jobs created or to be created and the benefits for local
industry. The amount allocated to the proposed operations is determined by a government
committee. One-third of the grant is paid at the beginning of the investment program, and the
remainder is paid in two installments as the project moves towards completion.
To prevent distortion of completion within the European Union, the Commission has set
limits on total public assistance which vary according to the area concerned. In a few areas,
notably the area around Longwy in Eastern France, parts of the North and Corsica, the ceiling
is as high as 28% or even 33% of investment in property, plant and equipment. In some other
areas, only independent companies with fewer than 250 employees can benefit from public
assistance and then, at a low rate.
2. The Regional Grant for New Businesses (PRCE)
The Regional Grant for New Businesses (PRCE) is given by Regions with no geographical
limitations.
It may be combined with the PAT and is reserved to young companies registered for less
than 12 months, which are likeley to create a minimum number of jobs.
The advantage takes the form of a pre-tax ceiling (150,000 FF to 200,000 FF), of refundable
loans, equity participation, etc.
3. The Redevelopment Agencies
The Redevelopment Agencies have also been created by large industrial corporations to
encourage the redevelopment of their production sites or the job reinsertion: a free technical
assessment is offered as well as various financial assistance.
4. Preferential Tax Regimes
Preferential Tax Regimes are provided, such as the Research Tax Credit, in order to
encourage innovative programs and technology transfers and the Tax Credit Break for
companies located in special investment areas (ZIP).
5. Temporary exemption from the Business tax
Temporary exemption from the Business tax may be granted to the benefit of research or
industrial activities located in priority development areas.
6. Tax exemptions are available for acquisitions of ailing firms
A company set up for the purpose of acquiring an ailing firm may qualify for major
exemptions from tax, social contributions and property levies. Acquirers can thus enjoy total
exemption from corporate income tax for the first 24 months of operation under certain
conditions. Entrepreneurs must undertake to keep the company and its business in operation
for the three years following the acquisition, failing which the tax savings become payable.
The buyer may also be exempted from business tax for a period of 2 years in all parts of
France by decision of a local authority like a “Commune”.
7. National social measures
National social measures are open to foreign enterprises inasmuch as they are treated like
French establishments. These measures allow total or partial exemption on labor costs,
employ contributions, reimbursements of training expenses, extensive incentives for hiring
young employees…. These various aids cover a large field of activities.
8. Research & Development
To encourage companies in certain key areas of technology to set up in France, the Minister
for Industry and Research offer subsidies for part of the research expenditure involved. When
investment in research is not directly subsidized, it may qualify for tax credit of up to FF 40
million per company and per year.
9. Local financial support
Most French municipalities and Chambers of Commerce sponsor business parks and
industrial zones.
They sell or lease the land and provide financing. Also government and local funds are
available for job training.
10. Export guarantees and financial assistance
Export guarantees and financial assistance are also investment incentives. The “Compagnie
Française d’Assurance pour le Commerce Exterieur” (COFACE) and the Banque Française du
Commerce Exterieur (BFCE) play the same role in relation to the sale of French goods abroad
as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) in the US in relation to the US
goods or the Export Credit Guarantee Department of the United Kingdom and may guarantee
and assist export activities.
COFACE provides credit insurance on behalf of the French State. BFCE provides subsidized
financing for companies involved in international trade and plays a coordinating role between
French exporters and the French Government.
C. Investment Incentives Available:
To stimulate industrial development, the French government and local authorities have implemented a wide range of financial incentives specifically tailored to industrial research and development.
These programs are often supervised by the Community.
A foreign investor can benefit from investment aids created in order to promote and maintain employment by the reorganization or reorientation of industries experiencing economic difficulties.
The various incentive programs available in France are frequently coordinated at the national level by the Délégation à l’Aménagement du Territoire et à l’Action Régionale (DATAR) and at the local level by the municipalities.
Thus, for example;
1. The “Prime d’Aménagement du Territoire” (P.A.T) granted by the DATAR.
DATAR provides grants to finance up to 33% of a given investment in land, buildings and / or
equipment purchased during the first three years of operation. The criteria to be eligible
include site selection, the number of jobs created or to be created and the benefits for local
industry. The amount allocated to the proposed operations is determined by a government
committee. One-third of the grant is paid at the beginning of the investment program, and the
remainder is paid in two installments as the project moves towards completion.
To prevent distortion of completion within the European Union, the Commission has set
limits on total public assistance which vary according to the area concerned. In a few areas,
notably the area around Longwy in Eastern France, parts of the North and Corsica, the ceiling
is as high as 28% or even 33% of investment in property, plant and equipment. In some other
areas, only independent companies with fewer than 250 employees can benefit from public
assistance and then, at a low rate.
2. The Regional Grant for New Businesses (PRCE)
The Regional Grant for New Businesses (PRCE) is given by Regions with no geographical
limitations.
It may be combined with the PAT and is reserved to young companies registered for less
than 12 months, which are likeley to create a minimum number of jobs.
The advantage takes the form of a pre-tax ceiling (150,000 FF to 200,000 FF), of refundable
loans, equity participation, etc.
3. The Redevelopment Agencies
The Redevelopment Agencies have also been created by large industrial corporations to
encourage the redevelopment of their production sites or the job reinsertion: a free technical
assessment is offered as well as various financial assistance.
4. Preferential Tax Regimes
Preferential Tax Regimes are provided, such as the Research Tax Credit, in order to
encourage innovative programs and technology transfers and the Tax Credit Break for
companies located in special investment areas (ZIP).
5. Temporary exemption from the Business tax
Temporary exemption from the Business tax may be granted to the benefit of research or
industrial activities located in priority development areas.
6. Tax exemptions are available for acquisitions of ailing firms
A company set up for the purpose of acquiring an ailing firm may qualify for major
exemptions from tax, social contributions and property levies. Acquirers can thus enjoy total
exemption from corporate income tax for the first 24 months of operation under certain
conditions. Entrepreneurs must undertake to keep the company and its business in operation
for the three years following the acquisition, failing which the tax savings become payable.
The buyer may also be exempted from business tax for a period of 2 years in all parts of
France by decision of a local authority like a “Commune”.
7. National social measures
National social measures are open to foreign enterprises inasmuch as they are treated like
French establishments. These measures allow total or partial exemption on labor costs,
employ contributions, reimbursements of training expenses, extensive incentives for hiring
young employees…. These various aids cover a large field of activities.
8. Research & Development
To encourage companies in certain key areas of technology to set up in France, the Minister
for Industry and Research offer subsidies for part of the research expenditure involved. When
investment in research is not directly subsidized, it may qualify for tax credit of up to FF 40
million per company and per year.
9. Local financial support
Most French municipalities and Chambers of Commerce sponsor business parks and
industrial zones.
They sell or lease the land and provide financing. Also government and local funds are
available for job training.
10. Export guarantees and financial assistance
Export guarantees and financial assistance are also investment incentives. The “Compagnie
Française d’Assurance pour le Commerce Exterieur” (COFACE) and the Banque Française du
Commerce Exterieur (BFCE) play the same role in relation to the sale of French goods abroad
as the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) in the US in relation to the US goods or the Export
Credit Guarantee Department of the United Kingdom and may guarantee and assist export
activities.
COFACE provides credit insurance on behalf of the French State. BFCE provides subsidized
financing for companies involved in international trade and plays a coordinating role between
French exporters and the French Government.
D. Conditions Required for Establishing Presence
The foreign investor exporting goods or services to France must comply with certain
conditions related to the entry of capital, services and persons.
at. The Export of Capital to France
Following the abolition of exchange controls in 1989, there were very few obstacles to the
transfer of funds to and from France.
Investments, whether by EU entities or by non-EU entities, that conform to one (among others) of the following cases were exempted from declaration and preliminary authorization of the French Treasury:
Creation of subsidiaries in France or a newly-formed legal entity;
Extension of the activity of an existing company;
Increase of the interest held in a French company under foreign control where the investor already holds two-thirds of the capital or of the voting rights.
Every direct investment operation realized in France must only be declared to the Minister of
Economy and Finance wherever this investment may come from.
However the following investments remain submitted to the obligation of prior declaration:
Investments, whether related to the exercise of the French public authority or infringing upon
the public order, the health, the security and those engaged in activities connected to the
production or the commerce of guns and war material or investments that are contrary to the
enforcement of French laws and regulations, are subject to a preliminary authorization.
On the contrary, neither authorization nor prior declaration are required in a large variety of
cases such as creation of companies, subsidiaries and new undertakings, direct investment
operations realized, exceeding an amount of 10 million francs in artisan, hotel or retail
enterprises in diverse commercial services or having for exclusive purpose the exploitation of
quarries, direct investments in estate enterprises (excepted building enterprises), acquisition of
farms, subscription to share capital increase, etc.
Subject to any applicable taxation, transfers of dividends and repatriation of capital are free.
b. The Export of Goods to France
(i) Customs Regulations
Goods circulate freely within the EU and duty is charged on imports only once. The principle
is that customs duties are paid just once on arrival in the EU, even when they are shipped on
from one Member State to another.
Moreover, products transferred to France from another EU country are not subject to any
import declaration (DI) or import license. The same applies to those imported from a non-EU
country provided the necessary EU entry formalities have been met in another EU country.
Furthermore, procedures and documents have been standardized. The SAD (statement
administrative unique), an identical document for all EU countries can be used for import,
transit and export. For import into France, from a non-European country, it is simply a matter
of taking the goods to customs, handing over the SAD and paying the duties. The operation
may take 3 days, but then exist special clearance procedures which can speed up the process.
The SAD must be filed by the importer at the EU place of entry. The certificate of origin, the
invoices, and the stamped DI form or import license, when applicable, are admitted, along
with the SAD form to the Customs Office at the place of entry.
Therefore, apart for certain products which are considered “sensitive” because of their nature
or their source (Asian countries or Eastern Europe) and require an import license, there is no
restriction on imports in France.
For some products, a form known as the D.I (Déclaration d’Importation) must be filed with
the Technical Division of the relevant Ministry, prior to Import. The technical Division
returns the form bearing its stamp to the importer, who then has one year to import the goods.
Import licenses and DI must be requested from the Central Import Licensing Office.
(ii) Value Added Tax (VAT)
The VAT is a tax on the consumption of goods and services and is paid by the consumer.
Businesses are only charged with collecting the tax on sales and deduct the VAT they have
paid on purchases and investments from the amount collected.
All EU. member states have adopted the VAT. In 1993, VAT became a pan-European tax,
charged in the country receiving the goods. Once charged, goods circulated freely with the
EU.
Exports of goods are fully exempt from VAT. Banking, financial and insurance transactions,
teaching and some real-estate rentals are the main services exempted from VAT.
Foreign service providers established in France charge VAT to their foreign clients in
accordance with the nature of their services and their place of business. For intangible
services for example (consultancy, telecommunications, advertising, data processing,
financial services, etc.), the foreign service provider must collect the VAT when the service is
provided to a client in France and is exempt from the VAT when the client is in another
country.
Reduced rates of VAT for many goods and services: The standard rate of VAT on the sale of
goods and services is 19.6% but lower rates are applicable in many cases. In particular, the
rate is 5.5% for some agricultural products, medicine (5.5 % to 2.5%), books, public transport,
newspapers and magazines (5.5% to 2.1%), some types of entertainment, etc.
(iii) Exemptions from customs duty and the VAT
They include:
- Goods imported for re-export
- In certain cases, alterations or repairs to goods for subsequent re-export
- Imports of goods for storage in France for maximum of 3 years in a warehouse
- There are also three zones such as Guadeloupe where goods may be stored free of customs
duty and VAT for up to 5 years
- There exists a certain number of import subsidies which mostly involve exemptions or
reductions in customs duties for goods entering France
- These measures are largely directed at products from developing countries (Africa, Central
or South America), from the former Soviet countries and from China.
b. The Export of Services to France
Foreign entities engaged in the supply of services are subject to compliance with certain
requirements prior to providing services in France. Each service sector, be it insurance,
banking, financial services, architecture, legal services, accountancy, audiovisual
communication, data processing, advertising, etc. has its own particular requirements that will
be detailed hereinafter.
One should bear in mind that foreigners must have a Tradesman Identity Card. The foreign shareholders of a “Société en Nom Collectif”, of a “Société en Commandite Simple” or “par actions”, the managing director of a “S.A.R.L.”, the President of the Board of Directors in a “SA”, etc., are also obliged to obtain this document.
d. Conditions imposed on non-EU workers in France
A non-EU national intending to work or conduct any commercial activity in France must have
a longterm visa and / or a business permit before doing so.
(i) long-term Visas
A long-term visa is granted as a right to any person who will be working in France and a
French Consulate has received notice that a business or work permit has been issued to that
person; It may take up to four months to process a visa application. US nationals must apply
at their local French Consulate for a long-term visa.
Since the SCHENGEN Agreement an overseas person holding a title delivered by one of the
signatory countries already mentioned above is normally entitled to enter in France.
(ii) Business Permits
Any non-EU national proposed to be appointed as a manager or officer of the French
subsidiary of a foreign-based company must hold a current French business permit.
Application for such permit is made at the appropriate French consulate.
A business permit will subject a US national (or any other Non-EU national) to the
appropriate French labor and social security laws.
Besides any National in possession of a Resident Card is allowed to work in France in any
fields for 10 years. This card is automatically renewable.
(iii) Social Welfare; Employment Conditions
The relations between employers and employees are governed by the French Labor code,
collective bargaining agreements (union agreements), company regulations and individual
employment contracts.
In accordance with the Non discrimination principle stated in the International Labor
Convention No. 111 as well as in the Treaty of Rome, foreign workers benefit from the same
rights and work conditions as French employees.
An employment may be for an indefinite or definite period. The Labor Code sets out
minimum standards of working conditions such as hours, overtime, and paid leave (including
vacation).
France has a mandatory system of social security covering health risks for salaried employees.
The system is financed by contributions from both employees and employers. Contributions
paid by the employer can rise to about 45% of gross salaries. Contributions to social security
are tax-deductible.
For foreign employees, double contributions are avoided by international reciprocity
agreements on social security concluded with France.
Pursuant the “Free Movement of Persons” European principle an employee regularly
employed and resident in a Member State of the EU may work with a minimum formalities in
any other Member State whatever his or her nationality may be (European or not).
D. Certain Rules Concerning Some Specific Fields of Services.
at. Architects
This profession is strictly regulated in France. The laws, rules and regulations tend to protect
the monopoly of architects on one hand, and the title of Architect on the other (Law 77-2 of
January 3, 1977 amended by the Law of July 12, 1985; Ordinance 78-67 of January 19, 1978;
Ordinance 80-217 of March 20, 1980, establishing a Code of Professional Responsibility of
Architects).
(i) Monopoly
The architect, according to French Law, is defined as the prime contractor to whom the owner
must address himself for any construction or renovation job which requires a building permit.
In all cases where a building permit is necessary (ie, for all new constructions, for all
changes in the purpose of an existing construction or all modifications carried out on its
volume or its outer appearance), the architect has to establish an architectural plan before such
permit can be issued.
Such a plan consists of drawings and documents defining “the positions of the building, their
content, organization and volume, as well as the choice of materials and colors”.
The execution of the work may be entrusted to a contractor, but the architect must always
ensure that the project is being followed as it has been approved by the authorities who have
issued the building permit.
Furthermore, the architect may participate in the following:
- Town planning and development, including preparation of drawings
- Allotment of land
- Preparation of programs
- Consulting of firms
- Preparation of public calls for bids
- Coordination and direction of works
- Providing assistance to owners
- Consultancy and appraisal expert
- Teaching
Architects are required to obtain insurance covering their professional responsibility.
They can group themselves and form a partnership with others of different means or
professions, or form a corporation for which they will work. In the latter case the partners
must comply with the following rules:
- The shares of the company must be nominative shares
- More than 50% of the nominative capital must be held by architects
- The membership of a new partner is subject to the prior agreement of the General Meeting
of shareholders. The decision must be taken by a two-third majority.
- None of the partners can hold more than 50% of the nominative capital
- The chairman of the board of directors, the general manager (if he is alone), at least half of
the managers and members of the board of directors, as well as the majority of the board of
directors and administrators must be architects.
(ii) Protection of the title
The illegal use of the title of architect is subject to criminal sanction.
To ensure the protection of the title, there is a professional body which guarantees the
application of professional rules and regulations. It has the authority to take disciplinary
action and controls the access to the profession through inscription on the Roll.
Furthermore, a code of ethics enumerates the architect’s obligations.
Thus, in principle, to join this profession, three conditions must be fulfilled:
Possess one’s civil rights and provide evidence of good moral character.
have obtained a degree, certificate, or other title recognized by the French government.
be French, or the national of another Member State of the European Community, or the national of a third country which has signed a convention of reciprocity with France.
There is no such convention between France and Canada, or the United States. - A North American cannot therefore practice as an architect in France, unless he has dual nationality, one of which is of an EU country.
In the latter case, the degree he or she holds must appear on the list of foreign degrees recognized as being equivalent to French diplomas by an order of the Ministre de l’Urbanisme, du Logement et des Transports (Ministry of Urbanism, Housing and Transport).
Nevertheless, the Law of January 3, 1977 and the Ordinance of January 16, 1978, mention four exceptions to the condition regarding French nationality:
1. A foreign architect can be authorized to practice by a decision of the Minister of
l’Urbanisme, whose decision is taken after hearing the opinion of the Ministre des Relations
External (Secretary of State). But in practice, the Minister of External Relations bases
his decision mainly on the existence of a convention of reciprocity with the country of origin
of the candidate. The situation is quite unfavorable for Canadians as the possibilities for
French architects to practice in Canada are very much restricted.
2. The Ministre de l’Urbanisme may allow a foreign architect to register in France, upon
presentation of professional references, and after taking into account the opinion of a national
commission. But this rule only concerns exceptional cases, where the candidate has already
completed works of great importance.
3. The Ministre de l’Urbanisme can authorize an architect to carry out a specific project in
France, either after hearing the opinion of the Conseil National de l’Ordre des Architectes, or
as a result of a contest of which he or she was the prize-winner.
Within this context, then, the authorization of the Minister is practically automatic.
It is to be noted that competitions are advertised in the bulletin of the Union Internationale des
Architects (UIA - International Union of Architects).
4. Finally, the law provides for persons having effectively practiced as architects in France
before 1977 to be recognized and approved by the Ministre de l’Urbanisme, after receiving the
opinion of a regional commission, and on these grounds to be authorized to work as an
architect.
However, this procedure seems quite impractical at the moment as 2,000 applications have
already been submitted, and l’Ordre des Architectes is not at all favorable to this procedure.
The application to register should be made to the Conseil Régional de l’Ordre des Architectes
of the area in which the candidate wishes to practice.
In cases 1, 2, and 3, however, if the candidate is the prize-winner of a competition, the
application should be made directly to the Direction de l’ Architecture du Ministère de
l’Urbanisme.
In all cases, the application must be accompanied by the documents which prove that the
candidate fulfills the statutory conditions.
In practice, North American architects in France practice in partnership with French
architects.
Indeed, the real problem is not the access to the profession, but the lack of knowledge of
French rules and regulations and of French practice, especially regarding the employment of
salaried workers, the making of contracts, the technical regulations (control of materials, etc.)
and the possibility of entering into a partnership with an engineering firm.
b. Consultancy in Management of Firms and Civil Engineering
All individuals, whether French or foreign, can establish a firm of consultants.
This is why there is a proliferation of Anglo-Saxon management consultant firms in Paris.
The field of activity of these firms is wide and mostly include auditing, counsel in matters of
strategies (product - market) and counsel in matters of organization.
This is also true in the field of civil engineering. There are no laws, rules or regulations which
limit the use of the title of Consultant Engineer, unlike the diploma of engineer obtained from
a particular university which is strictly regulated.
However, the members of these professions have sometimes felt that the absence of rules and
regulations was a negative factor, and have founded organized professional bodies with a
code of deontology.
This is the case with the Chambre Syndicale des Ingénieurs-Conseils (Consultant Engineers
Committee), and the Chambre Syndicale Nationale des Conseils en Recrutement (Recruitment
Consultants National Committee).
There is no mandatory obligation for consultant firms to take malpractice insurance coverage.
Nevertheless, these firms are strongly advised to do so, and it is mandatory in order to become
a member of certain associations.
In the particular case of recruitment of consultants, the activity, even though not governed by
any laws, is curtailed by the monopoly which is conferred to the Agence National Pour
l’Emploi (A.N.P.E.) – (National Agency for Employment) by a Government Order of 1945
regarding employment.
Where an intermediary acts as the authorized agent of a person seeking employment (whether
unemployed or not), on his behalf, with a person offering employment, the A.N.P.E.’s
monopoly is infringed. The recruitment consultant who acts as the authorized agent of a firm,
providing it with candidates does not infringe the monopoly of the ANPE
Recruitment consultant firms may seek candidates by (i) advertising or (ii) direct contact: (i)
Advertising is usually done through newspapers.
The consultant, in this case shall have to comply with the statutes and regulations relating to
employment ads in the newspapers (Labor Code - Labor Code, Article L 311-4).
In particular, it is prohibited to advertise a job offer:
(i) indicating a maximum age limit (except where a law, rule or regulations contains a requirement regarding age) containing false allegations (eg, duration of employment, remuneration, place of work) discriminating on the basis or origin, race, religion, or sex, or written in a foreign language or with foreign expressions having equivalent translations in French and concerning work carried out in France. There is, however, an exception for foreign language publications.
In addition, the consultant must give to the Director of the newspaper the name, corporate
names, and address of the anonymous client for whom the advertisement is published.
(ii) The recruitment consultant also operates by direct contact, that is to say that he or she acts
as a head-hunter.
Certain precautions must be taken in order to ensure that such a practice does not amount to
unfair competition.
It is constantly stated through case law that to bring an employee to quit his employment
amounts to unfair competition if the person was employed under a non-competition clause or
if the incitement to leave is accompanied by actions which are prejudicial to the new
to employ.
In the latter situation, to entice a worker to leave by offering him abnormal advantages with a
view to weaken the organization or to embezzle the assets of a rival company, amounts to
unfair competition
vs. Audio-visual Communication
The Statute N ° 86-1067 of September 30, 1986 relating to the freedom of communication
provides created a National Commission for Communication and Liberties (National
Commission for Communication and Liberties). This commission was replaced by a Conseil
Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel (C.S.A.) – (Superior Council on the Audiovisual Industry) under
Statute N ° 89.652 of January 17, 1989.
According to the principle which prevails in France and in the EU, Audiovisual
communication is free; it may only be limited by reason of a motivation expressly stated in a
statute.
Ordinarily this motivation consists of complying with human rights principles.
(i) Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel (C.S.A.)
The CSA has the following objectives to:
Ensure impartiality, to encourage free competition, and to foster the broadcasting of a multiplicity of opinions
Promote the French language and encourage French productions.
Guarantee the impartiality and independence of State-owned installations
Ensure the quality and diversity of programming.
(ii) Powers of the CSA
It authorizes the use of frequency bands, it controls their operation and takes the necessary steps to ensure a proper reception of the signals.
The procedure according to which it assigns the use of frequency bands is determined by an ordinance.
The use of frequencies for the transmission of audio-visual or radio communication services
by terrestrial hertzian means is subject to the technical conditions specified by the CSA. Thesis
conditions are set up according to criteria defined by the law of September 30, 1986, amended
by the law of January 17, 1989.
Ordinances shall fix the rules applicable to advertising, broadcasting of films and other audio-
visual productions. These rules shall be established for each category of audio-visual
communication services transmitted either by terrestrial hertzian means or by satellite.
The Statute of January 18, 1992 specifies that a proportion of European audio-visual
productions and the broadcasting of films must represent 60% of the production diffused and
at least 40% of them must be productions in the French language.
However, the CSA reserves its rights to fix the general rules applicable to the preparation of
programs, and to fix the general conditions for the production of the artistic works
broadcasted.
In particular, the CSA fixes the duration of the authorization. The authorization cannot
exceed 10 years for television services and 5 years for radio broadcasting services.
The operation of audio-visual communication services broadcasted by hertzian means or by satellite is subject to special obligations defined by the CSA and included in an agreement between the operator and the CSA
These agreements will include:
quality and duration of programming
honesty and multiplicity of the information and the programs
time allocated to the broadcasting of French works, primarily during prime time
time allocated for the broadcast of cultural, educational, and consumer protection programs
broadcasting to French overseas departments and territories
broadcasting of French programs abroad
extent of time reserved for advertising.
(iii) Radio and Television Broadcasting by Terrestrial Hertzian Means
The use of frequencies for the broadcasting of radio or television services by terrestrial hertzian means is authorized by the CSA
The procedure is the following one:
For certain predetermined zones, the CSA publishes a call for candidates seeking to operate
radio or television broadcasting services.
The candidates are either non-profit companies or associations registered according to the
Law of July 1, 1901.
The candidates must indicate in particular, the objectives and general characteristics of the
service, the technical characteristics of the broadcasting, the estimates regarding expenditure
and returns, the origin and the amount of the financing provided for, as well as the list of
administrators, members of the Board of Directors and shareholders.
The CSA finalizes a list of frequencies which can be allotted within a given zone in
consideration of the various applications.
The Council issues the authorization after studying and assessing the value for the public of
each project, with respect to the following three main priorities:
- the protection of the multiplicity of socio-cultural expression
- the diversification of operators
- prevention against the abuse of a dominating position in the market, or unfair competition. It also takes into account, for both radio and television license applicants: 1 - the experience acquired by the candidate in the field of communication; 2 - the financing, the profitability of the service, and whether the advertising resources will be well distributed between the newspaper companies and audio-visual or radio communications services; 3 - the direct and indirect share held by the candidate in the capital of one or more state-controlled advertising companies or in the capital of one or more newspaper publishing companies; 4 - the commitments of the candidate, regarding the broadcasting of French works, that are being broadcasted for the first time in France. and for television licenses applicants only: 5 - the broadcasting of educational and cultural programs; 6 - the involvement in educational and cultural activities; 7 - the contribution made to the broadcasting of television programs in French overseas territories; 8 - the contribution made to the broadcasting of a television program in foreign countries; 9 - the financial contribution made to the film and audio-visual industries.
The use of frequencies for satellite radio and television broadcasting is authorized by the CSA, according to procedures established by ordinance. The authorizations can be issued only to companies.
(iv) Radio Broadcasting and Television Distributed by Cable
Towns or groups of towns may install or authorize the installation of networks on their territory for the distribution by cable of radio and television services. However, the statute N ° 96-299 of April 10, 1996 which refers to experiments in technological and information field provides impairments to the existing statutes.
By and large, this text permits the realization, under specified conditions, of experimental
projects such as Digital Television broadcasted by Hertzian Terrestrial means and
broadcasting by microwave multiunit distribution system.
In such circumstances, the CSA is entitled to grant authorizations without proceeding to a call
for candidates.
The system is much more conventional than the former in order to adjust the legal conditions to these new technologies which involve the broadcasting of numerous services through only one frequency. These networks must comply with the technical specifications set by the CSA
The operation of the networks thus established is authorized by the CSA upon a petition by
a town or a group of towns. This authorization can be issued only to companies. It indicates
the number and the nature of the services to be distributed, and can mention certain
obligations of which it defines the conditions.
These obligations concern one, or more, of the following
1 - The retransmission of programs broadcasted by hertzian means normally received in the zone. 2 - Broadcasting of a minimum number of their own programs. 3 - The allotment of a channel reserved for local news and information concerning the town, to the town, or the group of towns concerned, on a full-time or part-time basis. 4 - The payment of a tax to the town or group of towns by the operating company.
An ordinance establishes: 1 - The rules regarding the duration of the authorization 2 - The general rules concerning the schedule of programs 3 - The general rules for the production of the works broadcasted 4 - The rules applicable to advertising 5 - The hours of the films and audio-visual works broadcasted
(v) Rules Applicable to all Services Which are Subject to Authorization
The law establishes certain guidelines in order to ensure a multiplicity of views: Television by Hertzian Terrestrial Means The same individual or legal entity cannot, directly or indirectly, hold more than 25% of the capital, or of the voting rights of a company having an authorization to operate a national television service by hertzian terrestrial means. Where an individual or a legal entity holds more than 15 % of the capital or the voting rights of a company which holds such an authorization, it cannot hold more than 15 % of the capital or of the voting rights of two companies having such an authorization ; it cannot hold more of another company having a similar authorization.
Firthermore, where an individual or a legal entity holds more than 5 % of the capital or of the
voting rights of two companies having such an authorization it cannot hold more than 5% of
the capital or the voting rights of another company having a similar authorization.
Television by Satellite and Television Transmitted Through Frequencies Attributed to Radio
Broadcasting
An individual or a legal entity cannot hold, directly or indirectly, more than 50 % of the
capital or of the voting rights of a company having an authorization regarding a television
service which is broadcasted exclusively through frequencies attributed to radio broadcast and
to television by satellite.
Where an individual or a legal entity holds, directly or indirectly, more than a third of the
capital or of the voting rights of a company having such an authorization, it cannot hold more
than a third of the capital or of the voting rights of another company having a similar
authorization.
Furthermore, where an individual or entity holds more than 5 % of the capital or voting rights
of two companies having the authorization mentioned above, it cannot hold more than 5% of
the capital or of the voting rights of another company having a similar authorization.
Capital held by Foreigners
A French national cannot carry out an acquisition which will result, directly or indirectly, in
foreigners holding more than 20% of the registered capital or voting rights of a company
having an authorization regarding radio broadcasting or television service in the French
language through hertzian terrestrial means.
In an European perspective, the broadcasting of television programs is submitted to the
“Home Country Control” principle whereby a program regularly authorized in a Member
State must be received in the other Member States without any additional control.
d. DataProcessing
Neither the conditions of access to professions related to data processing nor its practice are
governed by any particular rules or regulations.
Thus, no specific degree is required in order to declare oneself, manufacturer, designer,
consultant, etc. in data processing. Also, there is no professional organization supervising the
persons or firms pursuing these activities.
Such persons or firms can if they so desire, become members of associations, the main
objective of which is to promote and defend the professional, moral and economic interests of
their members.
Thus, Canadian and US residents can have access to the French data processing market.
An administrative organization called Agence de l’Information (Information Agency) has
been created.
This Agency is responsible for promoting data processing.
With this objective in view, the Agency:
provides its support and cooperation to public and private research concerning the use of data processing and the techniques which are liable to encourage their development
investigates new uses of data processing
investigates and participates in the experimentation of new applications of data processing.
organizes the collection and distribution of French and foreign information about the use of data processing and the research which is done in this field.
aims at acquainting potential users with data processing.
participates in education of potential users and in disseminating the new applications of data processing, and in the preparation of corresponding methodologies.
gives its opinion regarding the granting of government assistance to particular projects in data processing technology research.
informs the government of all the problems encountered in the field of data processing.
Data processing and electronics are considered by the Direction du Trésor (Treasury Department) to be sensitive fields of activity. Consequently, prior declarations of foreign investments in France in the field of data processing are subject to more detailed scrutiny than in the case of investments made in other fields of activity. The examination is carried out by the Direction du Trésor. Although this remains the exception, the Direction du Trésor has exercised its right to oppose the investment when the latter had a direct relation with the data processing or electronics industry. In certain cases, the Direction du Trésor subjects the investment to certain conditions. For example, in the case of a commercial investment, it may prohibit the importation of certain products, or, in the case of an industrial investment, it may require that a percentage of the end product be manufactured by French contractors.
e. Advertising
There are no specific requirements, other than the general principles of law already examined,
to establish an advertising agency or to practice as an advertising consultant.
Neither the access to nor the practice of this profession are subject to any particular
regulation. There are no specific degrees or diplomas required either.
There is no professional body which organizes and supervises the activities of the profession.
However, the media or owner of the media (newspapers, radio, television, billboard
advertising…) often require that the agency should hold the title of “intermédia” in order to be
able to purchase advertising space.
Agencies which hold the “intermédia” title can benefit from special conditions of sale which
each medium can establish in their favor.
This title is issued to firms and consulting agencies which practice according to criteria set up
by the International Chamber of Commerce (report of the 128th Session of the Council, June
1976).
The “intermédia” title is neither a certificate of professional aptitude, nor a general and
permanent power of attorney which the media confer to the agencies who hold the title. It
does not prevent the making of special agreements freely signed between the media and these
agencies.
The media remain the sole judges of the conditions imposed upon advertising in their
advertising space. In no way does it entitle the agencies to become sole agents between
advertisers and the media.
“intermédia” title is obtained by submitting an application to a commission that awards the title in Paris.
The consulting agency in advertising which applies for the “intermédia” title must fulfill the following conditions: carry our commercial activity in conformity with the laws, rules and regulations in force and with professional self discipline.
undertake to prevent the media to which the agency gives advertising orders from being sued
for the latter’s acts.
ensure that the advertising orders will be promptly paid for.
undertake to provide proof at all times of its capacity to pay for the orders booked by
providing payment guarantees, and especially:
by having insurance covering the risks of the advertiser’s insolvency.
by obtaining from these clients that they should be jointly responsible with the agency towards the media by countersigning the advertising orders issued to the latter.
not to be a central purchasing office of advertising space.
practice mainly as an advertising agent. The percentage of the agency’s revenue from advertising (purchase of space, creation, publishing, etc.) must exceed 50 % of its total revenues.
provide guarantees of professional proficiency (training, professional experience in an agency or with advertisers).
The “intermédia” title is conferred by right when the above-mentioned conditions recorded by
the commission are fulfilled.
French nationality is not listed as one of these conditions.
The “intermédia” title is delivered by a joint commission, the members of which include
representatives of the press, of other media and advertising executives. Its composition and its
organization are fixed by the internal rules and regulations.
If the “intermédia” title is refused, the concerned agency has the possibility to appeal the
decision to the commission, who summons the agency to hear its explanations.
