Requalification of a professional standard and reminder of the limits on liability arrangements
Source: www.courdecassation.fr
According to Article 1134, paragraph 1, in its wording prior to that resulting from the order of 10 February 2016, legally formed agreements are binding on those who have entered into them.
In October 2006, a Luxembourg train collided with an SNCF train on French territory, killing six people and causing significant material damage.
An agreement signed by the SNCF and the insurer of the Luxembourg company on 5 March 2007 provided for a provisional distribution of compensation to the victims. In this case, an implementation agreement signed between the parties in October 2005 stipulated that cooperation between them was governed by UIC sheet 471-1 drawn up by the International Union of Railways (UIC).
However, the parties disagreed on the scope of this form with regard to the final distribution of damages, leading the insurance companies to sue SNCF Mobilité and the health insurance companies.
The Court of Appeal, to which the case was referred, considered that this form, drawn up by the UIC and applicable to all its members once approved by more than four-fifths of the votes cast by the members consulted, was regulatory in nature since it was binding without mutual consent and without prior inclusion in a contract.
It concluded that this document established an autonomous regime that excluded any consideration of misconduct, including misconduct that could be classified as gross, fraudulent, intentional or inexcusable.
In the Court of Cassation's view, the Court of Appeal had failed to draw the appropriate conclusions from its own findings. The form was mandatory because the members of the UIC had voluntarily agreed to it, which gave it a contractual nature within the meaning of Article 1134 of the Civil Code.
Furthermore, according to Articles 6 of the Civil Code and 1134 and 1150 of the former Civil Code, specific agreements cannot derogate from laws relating to public order and morality. Therefore, an agreement cannot establish a liability regime in the event of gross or intentional negligence. By applying the UIC form as a regime excluding negligence, the Court of Appeal violated all of the aforementioned provisions.
History
-
TORTIOUS LIABILITY – The terms of the engagement letter may be enforced against a third party manager to the contract
Published on : 22/01/2026 22 January Jan 01 2026Actualités
Source: Cass. Com. 17 December 2025, No. 24-20.154 A virtual private... -
Requalification of a professional standard and reminder of the limits on liability arrangements
Published on : 06/01/2026 06 January Jan 01 2026Actualités
Source: www.courdecassation.fr According to Article 1134, paragraph 1, i...
-
Construction project blocked: judge may order expert assessment rather than mere hearing
Published on : 22/12/2025 22 December Dec 12 2025Actualités
Source: www.courdecassation.fr The project owners had commissioned a pro... -
Fire safety in commercial buildings: a new unified framework with Decree No. 2025-1100 of 19 November 2025
Published on : 16/12/2025 16 December Dec 12 2025Actualités
Source: www.legifrance.gouv.fr Decree No. 2025-1100 of 19 November 2025... -
B-Smart-4Change programme ‘Red alert on green products’
Published on : 05/12/2025 05 December Dec 12 2025Publications
Following the participation of EBA Endrös-Baum Associés in the SAFE – Parlons... -
Sale of a used vehicle: validity of an amicable, non-judicial assessment in the event of agreement on the facts
Published on : 05/11/2025 05 November Nov 11 2025Publications
Source: www.courdecassation.fr After purchasing a used vehicle from a prof...