A turnkey solution which would be to amend article l

It is liability incurred attack, security, located in the heart of the concerns of Commissionaires of air transport. The facts are there: the State has designated a police mission to private companies without protection or regulate the responsibility of the latter... which means that covered their authorized agent accreditation as the SNAGFA companies secure cargo embarked in cargo holds of passenger aircraft by engaging their own survival, insurance is not beyond 50 million covers of $... understanding that compensation to pay attack could exceed $ 1 billion threshold $.

The current situation distorts competition and penalise our companies

The France is, in terms of air cargo security, well ahead of its European neighbors, this situation generates further distortions of competition detrimental to our national companies, employment, and the competitiveness of French airports finally. Because, apart from our British neighbours, none of the States of the European Union has set up of system also binding liability for private operators.

Long, the services of the State said that in reality, there was no problem and that the texts currently applicable admitted the commitment of responsibility only for non-compliance procedures and the measures defined by the regulation. But this is: they are so complex that it cannot exclude such failure in the shipping process. In addition, for judicial action on foreign territory, the competent court will naturally have to apply its national law rather than the French law. The logic of non-compliance procedure included in article l. 321 - 7 would thus no application. On the action of a third party to the contract of carriage as, for example, the who-right of a passenger, would result direct to remove the so-called means requirement currently included in the article l. 321 - 7 of the code of civil aviation.

The solution: amend article l. 321 - 7 of the code of civil aviation

A solution exists yet: that put forward by the SNAGFA, after publication by Professor Philippe Delebecque of a report on the subject. A "turnkey" solution, which would be to amend article l. 321 - 7 of the code of civil aviation: establishment of a causal link between the fault committed by an authorized officer and the attack, the decision of a foreign court would apply in France that provided that the tribunal was primarily taken account of the French law, and, finally, only the airline could engage the liability of the authorized agent. This solution is based on what is expected by the Act of June 18, 1966, on marine handling businesses: the text limits the right of action for liability against the contractor of handling and will award it to the maritime carrier itself. In the case of the authorised agent, it is also channel use, not to delete those third parties to the contract, which will always retain the ability to turn against the airline.

Since it is the State that decided to entrust the implementation of this mission of security to private companies, it is the State the responsibility of defining the precise contours of an especially balanced and effective partnership with these same companies. And the framework for the liability of the different actors is an important part in this partnership. The ball is clearly in the camp of the State: the survival of the public/private partnership in security depends directly on the response will be.