Decision ID: 001693

In June 2005 the Executive Committee noted that in May 2005 the Court of Appeal in Rennes had rendered a judgement in respect of a claim for loss of income by a claimant who sold and rented out machines for the production of ice cream. It was recalled that the Fund had rejected the claim on the grounds that it was a second degree (indirect) loss, but that the Commercial Court in Lorient had appointed an expert to establish whether, and if so to what extent, the reduction in turnover resulted from a decrease in orders for such machines relating to the affected area. It was recalled that the Committee had decided that, in view of the importance of the issue for the proper functioning of the compensation regime based on 1992 Conventions, the Fund should pursue an appeal against the judgement. It was noted that the Court of Appeal, whilst stating that the admissibility criteria set out in the Fund’s Claims Manual were not binding on national courts, nevertheless held that the claimant had not proved a sufficient link of causation between the alleged loss and the incident, nor had the claimant proved that a loss had been incurred, and rejected the claim.

Category: Pure economic loss (tourism)
Subject: Second degree (indirect loss) claims