On 4 June 2026, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Case C‑629/24, MH v Costa Crociere SpA, on the interpretation of Article 2, Article 3(1) and the first paragraph of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 where a maritime carrier provides a cruise which constitutes “package travel” within the meaning of Directive 90/314/EEC. The request has been made in two sets of proceedings i) between, on the one hand, MH and, on the other, Costa Crociere SpA (“Costa Crociere”), Axyme Selàrl, acting as court-appointed liquidator of the company Blue Passion, Generali IARD SA, as the insurer of the company Blue Passion, Hiscox Insurance Company Ltd and the Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie (CPAM) de Paris, and ii) between, on the one hand, Costa Crociere and, on the other, DI, DM, in his own name and in his capacity as an heir of DI, Croisière Club SAS, Hiscox Insurance Company Ltd, the Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie (CPAM) du Puy-De-Dôme, Hiscox SA, as the occupational public liability insurer of Croisière Club SAS, and WT following personal injury sustained by MH and DI during cruises on ships operated by Costa Crociere and sold to them as package travel by the travel agencies Blue Passion and Croisière Club.

MH booked through the travel agency Blue Passion a cruise supposed to start in Valparaiso and end in Melbourne and to be provided on a ship belonging to Costa Crociere between 15 February and 17 March 2017. Having the head of her humerus fractured during the night of 17 to 18 February 2017, however, MH was repatriated to mainland France for treatment and, later on, brought an action for damages against Blue Passion and Costa Crociere before the tribunal de grande instance de Paris (Regional Court of Paris), which ordered them jointly and severally with Hiscox Insurance to pay compensation for the damage suffered by MH. Costa Crociere, therefore, brought an appeal against that judgment before the cour d’appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris), which held that MH was solely responsible for her accident because she had failed to turn on the light in her bedroom before she fell, with the result that Blue Passion could not be regarded as liable for improper performance of the contract. MH then brought an appeal against that judgment before the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation; the “referring court”).

Similarly, DM purchased a holiday in the form of package travel from the travel agency Croisière Club for himself and his wife DI consisting of a cruise around the Greek islands departing from Marseille with five stops along the way aboard a ship belonging to Costa Crociere which was to take place between 30 March and 11 April 2016. On 30 March 2016, however, DI fell and fractured her left humeral head after being struck by an unidentified person while she was trying to serve herself at the buffet on board the ship, which was still docked in the port of Marseille. Given that they could not travel on the cruise as a result of the accident, DM and DI brought an action for damages against Costa Crociere and Croisière Club before the tribunal judiciaire de Nanterre (Court of Nanterre), which found them liable together with Hiscox Insurance. Since that judgement was upheld by the cour d’appel de Versailles (Court of Appeal of Versailles), Costa Crociere brought an appeal before the referring court which, after reuniting the two proceedings, and in light of the need to interpret the relevant European legislation, decided to stay them and to ask to the Court of Justice whether Article 3(1) and the first paragraph of Article 7 of and Annex I to Regulation No 392/2009, and Article 5 of Directive 90/314 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a cruise has the characteristics of a “tourism package” for the purpose of Article 2(1) of that directive, actions for damages relating to personal injury sustained by a passenger on board the cruise ship during carriage by sea, within the meaning of Article 2 of that regulation, are to be governed by the liability regime of the maritime carrier providing the cruise with that ship, as laid down in that regulation.

According to the Court, where a consumer who has purchased a package to take a cruise that comes under Directive 90/314 sustains personal injury during the period in which he or she is on board the cruise ship, and takes the view that the latter is due to non-performance or improper performance of the “package contract”, he or she has the choice of bringing two types of actions for damages. First, in accordance with Directive 90/314, an action for damages against the organiser of that cruise in order to obtain compensation. Second, an action for damages on the basis of Regulation No 392/2009 and the Athens Convention directly against the carrier that actually carried out the carriage by sea, even where the latter is not the organiser of the cruise. In so far as a passenger participating in a cruise brings each of those actions for damages, the compensation obtained as a result of one of those actions must be considered when assessing the compensation sought in the context of the other one in order to prevent the passenger from obtaining compensation greater than that corresponding to the loss suffered.

Click here to read the full judgment.