Cruise Claims at the Crossroads: CJEU Clarifies the Relationship Between Package Travel Liability and Maritime Passenger Liability

Earlier this month, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down a decision that has shaken the travel industry’s core beliefs about the interaction between the Athens Convention and the Package Travel Directive (PTD).

It is therefore important for us to reflect on the decision and its impact on owners, carriers, and operators moving forward.

Background of the Claim

The case of Case C 629/24, MH and Costa Crociere SpA v Costa Crociere SpA and others (the judgment can be found here), concerns two French proceedings (MH v Costa Crociere SpA and Blue Passion and DM v Crosiére Club and Costa Crociere SpA) joined before the CJEU to address the core issue of passenger rights and the issue of liability for maritime carriers when a passenger suffers an injury on a cruise that forms part of a package provided by a travel organiser. 

The case turns on the interaction between Regulation No 392/2009, the Athens Convention, and the package travel regime under Directive 90/314/EEC (PTD). 

The first case of MH v Costa Crociere SpA and Blue Passion involved a passenger who booked a cruise through a travel agency. She sustained personal injury after failing to turn on the light in her cabin, resulting in a fall and a fractured elbow. Her claim against both the vessel and the travel organiser initially succeeded, with liability being imposed jointly and severally. However, on appeal, the Court found the defendants not liable and held the claimant solely responsible. This decision was subsequently appealed and forms part of the joined proceedings.

The second case of DM v Crosiére Club and Costa Crociere SpA concerned a passenger who booked a cruise for himself and his partner through a travel agency. The claimant  collided with another passenger while she was trying to serve herself at the buffet on board the vessel, notably the vessel was still docked at its place of origin in Marseille when the incident occurred. The couple were unable to continue the cruise and brought a claim for damages against both the carrier and the organiser. Liability was established against both defendants and upheld on appeal, prompting the vessel to file a further appeal.

Legal Background

Regulation No 392/2009 establishes the framework for carrier liability in the carriage of passengers by sea, incorporating the provisions of the Athens Convention (Article 1 and Article 3).

The Athens convention concerns the carriage of passengers by sea and covers the liability of the carrier to a passenger for death; personal injury; loss; or damage to luggage. Under Article 3, the claimant must show that the injuries were caused by the fault or neglect of the carrier unless there is a shipping incident, i.e a default with the vessel itself, to which strict liability is imposed on the vessel. 

Importantly, Article 7 provides that the Regulation operates without prejudice to the obligations imposed on tour operators under the PTD, which governs package travel liability.

The PTD sets out a number of consumer rights in relation to package travel and is focused on consumer protection, laying down liability for traders in relation to the performance of a package and adding clarity as to consumer’s rights. The PTD clearly states the obligations of the organiser and retailer in respect of the performance of the package. Under Article 5, the Directive requires Member States to ensure organisers are liable to the consumer for proper performance of the contract. Article 4 imposes various obligations on the organiser where performance is incapable and requires the organiser to remedy and/or compensate the consumer for the failure perform the contract.

The question before the CJEU was whether the Athens Convention applies where a cruise constitutes a package holiday, and how it interacts with the organiser’s liability under the Directive in cases of personal injury arising during carriage by sea.

CJEU Decision 

The CJEU held that where a passenger suffers personal injury during a cruise that forms part of a package holiday, there are two potential routes to compensation:

1. A claim against the travel organiser under the Package Travel Directive for the non-performance or improper performance of the package contract; and
2. A claim against the carrier under Regulation No. 392/2009 and the Athens Convention for carrier liability.

The Court made clear that these remedies coexist, creating a framework of concurrent liability rather than requiring a passenger to choose between them. 

However, it also emphasised that a claimant cannot recover twice for the same loss. Where claims are pursued against both the organiser and the carrier, any compensation awarded in one set of proceedings must be taken into account in the other. The claimant's overall recovery must be limited to the loss actually suffered.

Accordingly, whilst the decision confirms the availability of dual routes to liability, it also safeguards against overcompensation by ensuring that damages cannot exceed the passenger's actual loss. 

Possible Implications for the UK

Although decisions of the CJEU are not binding in England and Wales, the Athens Convention has been incorporated into domestic law through section 183 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, and the UK maintains its own package travel regime under the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018. Accordingly, it is foreseeable that a similar situation will emerge in the UK, particularly in light of this case.

In Norfolk v My Travel Group PLC [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 106, it was held that the Athens Convention could limit alternative claims under package travel legislation. 

A further example is the case of Stott v Thomas Cook [2014] UKSC 15 illustrates the traditional approach of the English courts to international carriage conventions and their exclusivity. Whilst this case involved the Montreal Convention, which governs the liability of carriers by air, this convention is comparatively similar to the Athens Convention as both establish self-contained liability regimes intended to provide certainty and uniformity across contracting states. The case involved a disabled passenger who had suffered poor treatment during a flight. The Montreal Convention was held to apply and so no other claim could be brought under disability regulations, including any claims under contract. The Courts clearly drew a line in the sand that no other claim could be made under another regime when Convention law applied, even where unfair treatment took place leaving aspects of the claimant’s loss uncompensated. 

However, the Court held in Lee v Airtours Holiday Ltd [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 683 that package travel regulations could offer an alternative remedy, as the convention was not incorporated into the contract. 

More recently, X v Kuoni Travel Limited [2021] UKSC 34 provided a recent example of organiser liability and, although this was not a maritime case, it was held that the package organiser’s liability for proper performance extended to the obligations performed by suppliers. Accordingly, this demonstrated the broad scope the judiciary is willing to adopt in interpreting organisational liability. 

Additionally, Feest v South West Strategic Health Authority and another (Bay Island Voyages, Part 20 defendant) [2015] EWCA Civ 708 clarified that the Athens Convention does not govern all aspects of carrier liability, allowing the operation of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.

Notably, a further layer of complexity is added by the reliance on case law to clarify the Convention’s application. For example, Article 14 of the Convention recognises this to be the sole framework through which a passenger can pursue a claim against a vessel. This appears to have been contradicted in the case of Feest. It seems as though rather than clarifying the Convention’s application, the piecemeal development of this area and divergency in judgments further muddies the UK legal scene. 

That said, when considered collectively, these authorities suggest that UK courts may be willing to take a flexible and increasingly broad approach to organiser liability, potentially permitting concurrent claims against both carriers and organisers. However, the recently published amendments to the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations, which are due to come into force by April 2027, demonstrate that the UK's legal framework is continuing to diverge from that of the EU, making it difficult to predict whether UK courts will continue to follow the direction of recent CJEU jurisprudence.

Practical Considerations

Operators and insurers will need to carefully establish the precise circumstances of an accident, including the exact location and time of the injury. This may include incidents occurring on board the vessel, during embarkation or disembarkation, within a terminal, on an excursion, or as part of a hotel stay or another non-maritime element of the package. This distinction is particularly important because different liability regimes may apply depending on the location and timing of the accident. The significance of this issue is already well recognised in English litigation. For example, in Jennings v TUI UK Ltd, the court considered whether an accident that occurred during disembarkation fell within the scope of "carriage" for the purposes of the Athens Convention. The factual boundary between “carriage by sea” and the wider package experience is likely to become a key battleground following this CJEU decision.

This decision will likely encourage claimants to pursue multiple causes of action through different legal mechanisms to achieve the most favourable outcome. As a result, insurers may face more complex hybrid claims involving multiple defendants and overlapping liability. Therefore, the prudent course of action is to act now and prepare before a binding decision is made in the UK.

Key practical considerations include:

• The need for early legal advice to assess exposure and set appropriate reserves;
• Reviewing concurrent proceedings and potential contribution claims;
• Working closely with tour operator partners to ensure cohesive defence approaches;
• Carefully examining insurance coverage and policy response; and
• Increased use of indemnity clauses to clearly allocate contractual risk between carriers, organisers, and suppliers;

There may also be a shift in contractual drafting, with parties seeking to strengthen risk allocation mechanisms in light of potential dual liability.

Conclusion

The CJEU's decision confirms that passengers injured during a package cruise may, in appropriate circumstances, pursue claims against both the carrier and the travel organiser. Although any compensation recovered must be limited to the loss actually suffered, the judgment reinforces the existence of parallel routes to liability and broadens the options available to claimants when seeking redress.

While the decision is not binding in the UK, it is likely to be influential in cases concerning the interaction between the Package Travel Regulations and the Athens Convention. In an area of law where the boundaries between these regimes have not always been clear, the judgment may encourage a more expansive approach to liability and claims handling.

For operators, insurers and their advisers, the decision underscores the importance of early investigations into the circumstances of an incident, careful assessment of the applicable liability regime, and consideration of how responsibility may be allocated between different parties involved in the holiday.

As the legal landscape continues to develop, businesses operating within the travel and cruise sectors should ensure they are alive to the potential for overlapping liability exposures and the strategic challenges they can create.