Aviation law lawyer Paris

Aviation law brings together rules of different origins that apply to any aircraft able to rise or travel through the air (Article L. 6100-1). For the passenger, it mainly means the European regulation on cancelled or delayed flights and the Montreal Convention, to which the Transport Code refers for the liability of a carrier holding an operating licence (Article L. 6421-3).

For the operator, aviation law provides for liability as of right towards third parties on the ground (Article L. 6131-2) and a regime of administrative penalties, notably for airport nuisance (Article L. 6361-12). For the owner, it sets the rules on registration, transfer, mortgage and seizure of the aircraft.

This page covers the subject as a whole and the rules specific to operators and owners. The pages on cancelled or delayed flights and on plane crashes detail the remedies available to passengers and victims.

Yes. The European regulation provides for fixed compensation and standardised assistance measures, whereas the Montreal Convention makes the carrier liable for loss caused by delay, unless it proves that it, its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage, or that it was impossible for them to do so (Article 19 of the Montreal Convention). The Court of Cassation infers from this that "compensation granted to air passengers on the basis of Article 12 of Regulation No 261/2004 is intended to supplement the measures provided for by that regulation" (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 14 February 2018, No. 16-20.354).

In that case, a passenger who had reached her destination late claimed the price of a hotel room. The local judge (juge de proximité) had dismissed her claim on the ground that the regulation covers accommodation only if the flight is delayed until the following day. The Court of Cassation overturned that reasoning, since the claim was based on the Convention and not on the right to assistance provided for by the regulation.

Loss compensated under the Convention must be proved and remains capped, save in the case of qualified fault by the carrier (Article 22 of the Montreal Convention). For passenger delay, the cap of 4,150 special drawing rights fixed in 1999 has been revised under the mechanism provided for by the Convention: it stands at 6,303 special drawing rights for carriage performed since 28 December 2024 (ICAO press release of 18 October 2024). Each claim is therefore divided between what falls under the fixed compensation and what falls under individualised compensation.

It depends on the legal basis. An action for liability based on the Montreal Convention must be brought, on pain of forfeiture, within two years running from the date of arrival, the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or the date on which the carriage stopped (Article 35 of the Montreal Convention). That period applies to baggage, cargo, delay and personal injury.

The fixed compensation under the European regulation is subject to a different time limit. The Court of Cassation has held that "the action for payment of the fixed compensation was subject to the ordinary five-year limitation period provided for in Article 2224 of the Civil Code" (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 14 March 2018, No. 17-15.378), that is, five years from the day on which the passenger knew or ought to have known the facts (Article 2224 of the Civil Code).

The same disruption can therefore give rise to two actions that do not expire on the same date. The firm calculates each from the travel documents and, when the two-year time limit approaches, brings the action without waiting for the outcome of amicable discussions.

The carrier is liable for the loss, damage or destruction of checked baggage where the event took place on board or while the baggage was in its charge, unless the damage results from the nature or inherent defect of the baggage; if the baggage has not arrived twenty-one days after the date on which it ought to have arrived, or if the airline admits its loss, the passenger may exercise their rights as for a loss (Article 17 of the Montreal Convention). For damage and delay, a written complaint is required: in the case of damage, as soon as it is discovered and at the latest seven days after receipt of the baggage; in the case of delay, within twenty-one days of the baggage being placed at the passenger's disposal. Failing that, any action is inadmissible, save in the case of fraud by the carrier (Article 31 of the Montreal Convention).

The time limit is applied strictly. In a decision given in Paris, the passenger had received his or her baggage and made a claim only more than twenty-one days after receiving it; the court held that "the claim for compensation based on the loss of the baggage is inadmissible" (our translation) (TJ Paris, 11 March 2025, No. 22/05748). A ruling unfavourable to the passenger, who was also ordered to pay a sum towards the airline's legal costs.

Compensation remains capped. For a passenger deprived of three suitcases, the Paris Court of Appeal recalled that "that sum is a compensation ceiling which covers both material and non-material damage and from which the passenger concerned does not benefit as of right and as a fixed amount, even where baggage is lost" (our translation) (CA Paris, 29 February 2024, No. 21/03598). That cap, which is 1,519 special drawing rights per passenger for carriage performed since 28 December 2024 (ICAO press release of 18 October 2024), can be raised by a special declaration of interest at check-in (Article 22 of the Montreal Convention). In every case, the contents, value and loss must be supported by probative evidence: the court ruled on the basis of the invoices produced and also compensated the non-material loss, within the limit of the cap.

It all depends on what it sold. A professional who sells a travel package or a travel service is liable as of right for their performance; it is relieved of liability, in whole or in part, only by proving that the damage is attributable to the traveller, to a third party unconnected with the provision of the travel services included in the contract, or to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances (Article L. 211-16 of the Tourism Code). That regime does not apply to the sale of an air transport ticket outside a package (Article L. 211-17-3 of the Tourism Code).

The Court of Cassation has drawn the conclusion that "the liability of a travel agency that has supplied only air transport tickets arises only where fault is proved" (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 4 June 2025, No. 23-20.062). On that point it set aside the judgment that had ordered the agency to pay jointly and severally with the airline without examining whether its liability, since it maintained that it had sold only tickets, required proven fault, and remitted the case to another court. The nature of the sale remains to be established in every case.

The defendant is therefore chosen on the basis of the invoice: package or ticket only. In the second case, the claim is directed first at the carrier, and the agency is joined only if fault on its own part can be established, for example a booking error or a failure to provide information.

The carrier is liable for the loss, damage or destruction of cargo provided the damaging event took place during carriage by air (Article 18 of the Montreal Convention). It is relieved of liability if it proves that the damage results in particular from the inherent defect of the cargo, defective packing performed by someone other than the carrier, an act of war or an act of a public authority. Its liability is also limited per kilogram, unless a special declaration of interest was made when the package was handed over (Article 22 of the Montreal Convention): 17 special drawing rights in the 1999 text, 26 for carriage performed since 28 December 2024 (ICAO press release of 18 October 2024).

The cap applies broadly. The commercial chamber of the Court of Cassation approved a court of appeal which, the loss being presumed to have occurred during the air phase and the intermediary having the status of air carrier on the strength of the air waybills, had applied the limits of the Convention without the shipper being able to invoke inexcusable fault to set them aside (Cass. com., 16 June 2021, No. 19-24.510). The shipper's appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed: a ruling unfavourable to the shipper. The Convention, moreover, provides for the caps to be lifted for qualified fault only in the case of delay affecting passengers and baggage.

For a consignment of value, protection is prepared before departure: declaration of value, ad valorem insurance, then a written complaint in the case of damage, as soon as it is discovered and at the latest fourteen days after receipt, or within twenty-one days of the goods being placed at the consignee's disposal in the case of delay (Article 31 of the Montreal Convention). The firm reads the air waybills and the general terms to identify who is the carrier and who is merely a commission agent.

Yes. The Airport Nuisance Control Authority (Autorité de contrôle des nuisances aéroportuaires) imposes an administrative fine on any person who fails to comply with the operating restrictions set at an aerodrome, in particular restrictions on night flights (Article L. 6361-12). For a legal entity, the cap is €20,000 per breach, raised to €40,000 in particular for night flights, and the decision may be challenged by way of a full-jurisdiction challenge (Article L. 6361-13).

A challenge does not always wipe out the penalty. For two take-offs in breach of the Nice curfew, the administrative court had annulled the authority's decisions for breach of the principle of impartiality and then itself imposed two fines; the Paris administrative court of appeal (cour administrative d'appel) dismissed the airline's appeal, holding in particular that a summons received twenty-seven days before the hearing had not deprived it of any safeguard (CAA Paris, 17 July 2023, No. 21PA00724). A ruling unfavourable to the operator.

The firm examines the evidence of the timings, the regularity of the report, the notification of the alleged breaches and the composition of the panel that ruled, then assesses whether a defect could have influenced the decision or deprived the operator of a safeguard.

Yes. The carrier may board a passenger for international carriage only after proof of the passenger's right to land at the destination and at stopovers (Article L. 6421-2). An air transport company that disembarks in France, from a State that is not party to the Schengen Convention, a foreign national who is not a national of a European Union State or of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway or Switzerland and who lacks the required travel document or visa, is liable to an administrative fine (Article L. 821-6 of the Code on the Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum). The fine is not imposed, in particular, where the airline establishes that the required documents were presented to it at boarding and showed no manifest irregularity (Article L. 821-8 of the same Code).

The court checks whether the irregularity was manifest. For a passenger holding a manifestly forged passport, the Paris administrative court of appeal held that the defects could have been detected by a normally attentive examination by the airline's staff and dismissed the carrier's application (CAA Paris, 7 June 2024, No. 23PA02574). A ruling unfavourable to the airline, which obtained no reduction of the fine.

The defence turns on the report, on whether the documents were actually presented at boarding, and on how they looked. The firm gathers the documents relating to the check before drafting the written observations or the challenge.

An aircraft is movable property, but its transfer is recorded in writing and takes effect against third parties only once it is entered in the French aircraft register (Article L. 6121-2). That entry constitutes title of ownership and the register is public (Article L. 6121-1). An aircraft may, moreover, fly only if it is registered, subject to exceptions specific to certain drones (Article L. 6111-1).

This public registration has powerful effects. Whereas a claim to recover movable property must in principle be brought within three months of publication of the judgment opening the proceedings (Article L. 624-9 of the Commercial Code), the Court of Cassation has held that "as ownership of the aircraft is, by virtue of its registration, enforceable against everyone, it is necessarily enforceable against the insolvency proceedings, and the owner is not subject to the procedure for reclaiming property provided for in Article L. 624-9 of the Commercial Code" (our translation) (Cass. com., 27 March 2024, No. 22-14.028). The liquidator of the company in liquidation therefore could not raise the time bar against the registered owner.

Registration also serves financing: a registered aircraft may be encumbered with a contractual mortgage (Article L. 6122-1), created in writing on pain of nullity (Article L. 6122-2). The firm checks the register before any acquisition, lease or taking of security.

Ordinary law allows it to any person whose claim appears well founded in principle and who shows circumstances threatening recovery of it (Article L. 511-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures). The enforcement judge authorises protective measures (Article L. 213-6 of the Code of Judicial Organisation).

For a foreign aircraft, the Court of Cassation settled the question of jurisdiction after referring to the Council of State: "the enforcement judge exclusively authorises protective attachments of aircraft of foreign nationality or whose owner is not domiciled in France" (our translation) (Cass. 2e civ., 2 February 2023, No. 21-17.459), subject to the optional jurisdiction held concurrently by the president of the commercial court. The text that designated the local court judge of the place of landing had been declared unlawful.

Aircraft assigned to a State service or to public transport enjoy protection: without prejudice to the special procedures of the Transport Code, they may be seized by way of protective attachment only for sums owed by the owner in respect of their acquisition or of training or maintenance contracts linked to their operation, or for certain taxes (Article L. 6123-1). Among those special procedures, the minister responsible for transport, the aerodrome operator and the Airport Nuisance Control Authority may, after formal notice, require protective attachment of the aircraft for unpaid charges or fines (Article L. 6123-2). The firm checks the nature of the claim before filing the application.

In principle yes, jointly and severally with the operator. The Transport Code provides, however, that if the lease has been entered in the aircraft register, the owner is liable for damage caused to third parties only if they establish fault on its part (Article L. 6131-4).

Towards persons and property on the surface, the operator remains liable as of right, and only fault by the victim can reduce or remove its liability (Article L. 6131-2). Where two aircraft in motion collide, on the other hand, the liability of the pilot and the operator falls under the Civil Code (Article L. 6131-1).

For an owner who leases out an aircraft, to a flying club, a school or an operator, entering the lease in the register is therefore a simple precaution. The contract, its publication in the register and the insurance cover are prepared together, before the aircraft is handed over.

No. Where an air accident has the material character of an offence, the victim may apply to the Victims' Compensation Commission (CIVI), but on the conditions of Article 706-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code de procédure pénale): the damage must result from an injury to the person, the facts must in principle have caused death, permanent incapacity or total personal incapacity to work of at least one month, and the victim must be of French nationality or the facts must have been committed on French territory. Compensation is then full, subject to reduction or refusal in the case of fault by the victim. The Court of Cassation has held that the guarantee fund "could not benefit from the cap on liability established by the Warsaw Convention in favour of the air carrier" (our translation) (Cass. 2e civ., 10 February 2022, No. 20-20.814).

In that case, the court of appeal had limited compensation to the cap in the Warsaw Convention, which Article L. 6421-4, in the version applicable to the dispute, applied to a carrier without an operating licence. That text now refers to the Montreal Convention for carriers not covered by Article L. 6421-3 (Article L. 6421-4).

The victim is therefore not confined to the carrier's cap where the route through the commission is open. The firm compares the compensation routes available, against the operator, its insurer or the fund, before choosing the order of steps.

The right of overflight exists, but it may not be exercised in conditions that would impede the exercise of the owner's rights (Article L. 6211-3). An owner who suffers repeated, low or intrusive overflight therefore has a basis for acting, to be assessed according to the circumstances.

The remote pilot must have undergone training enabling them to control the aircraft's movement safely, with an exception for certain light aircraft used in model aircraft clubs (Article L. 6214-2). Drones weighing more than twenty-five kilograms or whose design is subject to certification must also be registered (Article L. 6111-1).

Since a drone is an aircraft within the meaning of the Transport Code (Article L. 6100-1), its operator is liable as of right for damage caused to persons and property on the surface (Article L. 6131-2). The firm examines the position of the overflown owner as well as that of the remote pilot concerned.