You are here :
  1. Publications
  2. Actualités
  3. Requalification of a professional standard and reminder of the limits on liability arrangements
Requalification of a professional standard and reminder of the limits on liability arrangements

Requalification of a professional standard and reminder of the limits on liability arrangements

Published on : 06/01/2026 06 January Jan 01 2026
Actualités

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.
Share on
Publish this article Share on LinkedIn Share on Facebook Send by E-mail

History

<< < 1 2 3 4 > >>
Septeo Digital & Services © 2024
Browser not supported

The Internet Explorer browser you are currently using does not display this website correctly.

We recommend that you download and use a more recent and secure browser such as Google Chrome , Microsoft Edge , Mozilla Firefox , or Safari (for Mac) for example.
OK