Athens Convention or the Package Travel Directive? Or both?

MH -v- Costa Crociere SpA (C-629/24)

A judgment from the CJEU on 4 June 2026 has drawn attention to the potential overlap between two different liability regimes in cases where personal injuries are sustained by a passenger on board a cruise ship.

The two regulatory frameworks are:

1. the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (Athens Convention) (and the Passenger Liability Regulation 392/2009) and

2. the EU Package Travel Directive/Regulations (PTR)

This article considers the significance of the CJEU decision in the context of the background to and scope of the two regulatory frameworks.

Athens Convention/Passenger Liability Regulation

The Athens Convention 1974, as updated by the Athens Protocol in 2002, establishes a liability regime for death and personal injury sustained by passengers onboard a cruise. The 2002 Protocol came into force in April 2014.

The Athens Protocol was preceded by the EU Passenger Liability Regulation (PLR), which came into force for EU and EEA Member States in December 2012. The PLR largely reflects the provisions of the Athens Convention but with some additional provisions.

Broadly, the Athens Convention/PLR have been implemented into English law by statute.

Under the Athens Convention/PLR, the carrier will be liable if the loss or injury was sustained during the course of the carriage and resulted from the carrier’s fault or neglect. However, there are express limits of liability setting a cap for the maximum amounts recoverable by way of compensation. Additionally, there is a two-year time-limit for bringing claims under the Athens Convention.

Importantly, Article 14 of the Athens Convention/PLR states that:

’No action for damages for the death or personal injury to a passenger, or for the loss of or damage to luggage, shall be brought against a carrier or performing carrier otherwise than in accordance with this Convention.’

Therefore, the Athens Convention/PLR is the exclusive regime for personal injury claims which occurred during carriage.

EU Package Travel Regulations

The 2018 PTR (revised from the 1992 PTR) provides protection for consumers in respect of package holidays and linked travel arrangements. Under the PTR, broadly speaking a package is a combination of at least two different types of travel services for the same trip/holiday which are booked under a single contract with one supplier or offered or sold or charged at an all-inclusive or total price. Travel service includes transport, accommodation, car rental and other tourist services which are an essential feature of the combination.

The PTR applies in the UK by virtue of the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018.

Under the PTR, the organiser of the package is responsible for the performance of the travel service included in the package, even if performance is by another travel services provider.

In X v Kuoni Travel Ltd [2021] UKSC 34 (30 July 2021), the Supreme Court and the CJEU held that a package organiser was liable for a rape committed by an employee (electrician/maintenance staff) of the hotel where the victim was staying. The case was decided under the earlier 1992 PTR, but the outcome would be the same under the 2018 PTR.

The time limit for bringing a personal injury or other claim under the PTR is three years. However, on the assumption that a claim for personal injury sustained on a cruise ship would come solely under the Athens Convention, such a claim would prima facie be subject to a two-year time limit from the date of disembarkation.

Earlier cases

In Norfolk -v- MyTravel Group PLC [2004]1 Lloyd’s Rep 106, the defendant provided a package holiday which included a cruise. During the cruise, the claimant slipped on water onboard the vessel. She issued her claim after the two-year time-limit that applied under the Athens Convention but brought her claim under the 1992 PTR, arguing that the Athens Convention only applied if it was explicitly referenced in her contract of carriage, which it was not.

The County Court agreed with the defendant that the claim came under the Athens Convention and was consequently time-barred. The contract of carriage did not need to expressly reference the Athens Convention; it applied automatically as a matter of law.

However, in Lee and Another -v- Airtours Holidays Limited [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 683, the Central London County Court appeared to take a different view.

The claimants saw a cruise advertised by teletext and booked it on the telephone. There was no mention of any terms and conditions at the time of booking.

On the cruise, fire broke out on the vessel. The passengers and crew abandoned ship and used lifeboats. The vessel sank and the claimants lost all their belongings, including valuables placed in the cabin safe.

They claimed for personal injury, including psychiatric damage and loss of possessions and valuables. Their claim was brought under the 1992 PTR, and they argued that no contract was ever issued let alone a contract which purported to refer to compensation being limited under the Athens Convention. Consequently, the claimants contended that the defendants could not rely on the Convention liability caps.

The defendants admitted liability under the 1992 PTR but argued that the Athens Convention applied as a matter of law and they could, therefore, limit their liability.

The Court found that the PTR could provide an alternative remedy to the Athens Convention in this instance as they were implemented into English law and the Athens Convention was not incorporated into the contract. Furthermore, the Court stated that in so far as any conflict arose, then the PTR would prevail.

Lee -v- Airtours is, however, considered to be wrongly decided. Both decisions are also county court decisions, and neither was appealed.

In Jennings v TUI UK Ltd (t/a Thomson Cruises) [2018] EWHC 82 (Admlty) (22 January 2018), the claimant was disembarking the cruise ship via a covered fixed walkway when he slipped on water, fell and sustained an injury. The claimant brought his claim under the Athens Convention and also the PTR, arguing that the injury was sustained due to the negligence of a crew member.

The Court stated that the Athens Convention did not apply because the injury was not sustained during the course of carriage. The Court held that the later parts of the fixed walkways were port installations and, therefore, the period of carriage had already ended when the claimant fell. Any liability, therefore, would have been under the PTR. However, the claim was dismissed on the facts.

This decision was confirmed in Mahapatra v TUI UK Ltd [2018] EWHC 3140 (Admlty) (16 November 2018). In both cases (decided by the same Admiralty Registrar), the view appeared to be that the PTR only applied if the Athens Convention did not.

Costa Crociere

The Costa Crociere litigation involved two separate personal injury claims following two separate accidents during cruises that were sold as package holidays and engaged the 1992 EU Package Travel Directive (and so the PTR).

DM/DI -v- Croisiere Club SAS

In 2016, DM purchased a package holiday from the travel agency, Croisière Club SAS, for himself and his wife, DI. The package consisted of a cruise aboard a ship operated by Costa Crociere SpA from Marseilles to the Greek Islands.

At the beginning of the holiday, while on board, but before the ship left port, DI was struck by an unidentified person while serving herself at the buffet and broke her arm.

DM and DI did not participate in the cruise and brought a claim against the cruise operator and the travel agency. The travel agency’s insurer voluntarily joined the proceedings.

The French Court held the defendants liable and ordered them to pay compensation. They appealed. The French Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and applied the PTR, as transposed into French domestic law, and so ordered the defendants to compensate the claimants.

The cruise operator appealed to the French Court of Cassation (the Highest Court in France), arguing that the Court of Appeal should have applied the Athens Convention/PLR, not the PTR. They also argued they were not liable.

MH -v- Costa Crociere

In 2017, MH booked a cruise aboard a ship operated by Costa Crociere through the travel agency Blue Passion, which was to take her from Chile to Australia.

A few days after the cruise started, during the night, MH got out of bed without turning on the light, fell and broke her arm. She was subsequently repatriated to mainland France for medical treatment.

MH brought a claim against the travel agency and the cruise operator. Once again, the insurer of both defendants voluntarily joined the proceedings.

The Regional Court of Paris found both the travel agency and the cruise operator were 20% liable for the damage suffered by MH as a result of her fall. The Court ruled that MH was also partly responsible for the fall because she had not turned on the light.

On appeal by the cruise operator, the Paris Court of Appeal found MH to be solely responsible for her accident because she had failed to turn on the light in her bedroom. Consequently, the travel agency could not be held liable for improper performance of the contract under the PTR, as enacted into French domestic law.

The Court of Appeal also held that the cruise operator could not be held liable for the accident under the Athens Convention/PLR as there was no evidence of any ship movements or failures by the cruise operator that could have caused the fall.

MH appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing that the PTR, not the Athens Convention/PLR, applied to the claim against the cruise operator.

The two claims were heard together by the Court of Cassation, which noted that the lower courts had reached opposite conclusions in each case on whether the French PTRs or the PLR/ Athens Convention applied to maritime cruise operators.

The two claims were joined together, and the Court of Cassation referred the cases to the CJEU for a determinative decision on which legal regime governed the claims. This would be particularly important in cases with limitation issues or where there would be a damages cap under the PLR/Athens Convention.

Preliminary Ruling of Advocate General

This was a non-binding preliminary ruling from the CJEU Advocate General (AG) in September 2025.

The AG stated that the two different sets of regulations were aimed at different defendants and had different regulatory purposes.

He clarified that the carrier (cruise operator) typically bears liability for bodily injury sustained on board the ship. The organiser, by contrast, is responsible for ensuring the proper performance of the package travel contract and is therefore also liable for any deficiencies attributable to the carrier’s conduct.

Therefore, in the event of accidents involving passengers on board a cruise ship, the two differing regulatory frameworks might apply concurrently and might overlap in certain circumstances.

The claimant passenger will need to assess how to frame their claim depending on the specific circumstances of their case.

The AG illustrated this by stating that the Athens Convention/PLR will apply to events in which a risk typically associated with the carriage of passengers by sea has materialised; risk over which the carrier, by virtue of its position as the operator of the vessel, normally exercises control and bears a legal duty to take all measures within its powers to prevent from materialising.

For example, a slip, trip or fall onboard due to wet or uneven deck surfaces or unsecured flooring or poorly lit stairwells would come under the Athens Convention/PLR. However, services that relate to accommodation or the use of recreational facilities (such as swimming pools, saunas, spas or gyms) fall outside the scope of the Athens Convention/PLR and should come under the PTR. Furthermore, accidents occurring during an excursion onshore would not come under the Athens Convention/PLR but would fall within the scope of the PTR if they formed part of the agreed package holiday.

Therefore, an injured passenger may, as a general rule, bring any claim under the PTR unless the injury in question was caused by an event clearly connected with the carriage of passengers by sea. Furthermore, in the event of doubt as to which rules apply, the PTRs should prevail over the Athens Convention/PLR, unless the conditions for compensation under the Athens Convention/PLR are clearly met.

In the AG’s view, in both these cases, the claimants’ injuries came within the liability regime under the PTR not the Athens Convention/PLR because they did not result from a shipping incident within the scope of the Athens Convention/PLR nor did they materialise from a risk typically associated with the carriage of passengers by sea.

CJEU judgment

The CJEU stated any claim for compensation for personal injury during carriage at sea is covered by the Athens Convention liability regime and (contrary to the AG’s view) there can be no distinction between on board ’accommodation’ compared to ’carriage’ cases.

However, where a customer has purchased a package, he can have two causes of action:

1. The first claim is under the PTR against the organiser for non-performance or improper performance of the package travel contract, but the organiser may rely on the Athens Convention limits on levels of compensation payable, with the relevant Member State court to determine if there was a ’shipping incident’ within the scope of the Convention and if not, whether the incident was due to the fault or neglect of the carrier.

2. A second claim lies under the Athens Convention against the carrier, even where the carrier is not the organiser. The carrier can rely on the Athens Convention limits.

If the passenger brings both types of claim, then any compensation awarded in one claim must be taken into account when assessing compensation in the second claim to avoid double recovery. It is not clear from this judgment whether the Athens Convention/PLR two-year time bar would apply.

Therefore, the Court rejected that the Athens Convention/PLR excludes the potential for pursuing alternative causes of action under the PTR. However, it is not clear if such a claim was brought in France what the position would be if the cruise carrier/operator was also the package organiser.

Comment

The CJEU decision is not binding in the UK, and it is not clear whether the English Courts will follow this judgment. We suspect, however, this is more likely to be argued in a high value case which is above 400,000 SDRs and/or where the claimant misses limitation and so they try to bring a claim under the PTR (which has a three-year time limit) rather than the Athens Convention/PLR (which generally speaking has a two-year time limit).

Practically speaking, the position therefore under English law remains that the Athens Convention/PLR is the exclusive regime, up to such a time that the English Courts say otherwise.

In the meantime, it is important for cruise operators, package travel organisers and their insurers to consider their legal exposure and ensure that there is appropriate insurance cover in place. Standard terms and conditions may also need to be reviewed with a view to expressly allocating contractual risk as between the different parties.

Find out more about our Personal Injury expertise or contact us today to discuss how we can support you.