This appeal concerned the personal injury of passengers carried by sea. One of the grounds of appeal was that the Piraeus Court of Appeal had failed to apply the Athens Convention 1974.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

In arts 1.9, 2.1, 3.1, 7.1, 12.1, and 14 of the Athens International Convention for the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea 1974, ratified by Law 1922/1991, which has the force of law defined by art 28(1) of the Constitution, the following are defined: 'international carriage' means any carriage in which, according to the contract of carriage, the place of departure and the place of destination are situated in two different States, or in a single State if, according to the contract of carriage or the scheduled itinerary, there is an intermediate port of call in another State (art 1.9). This Convention shall apply to any international carriage if: (a) the ship bears the flag or is registered in a State Party to this Convention; or b) the contract of carriage has taken place in a State Party to that Convention, or (c) the place of departure or destination, in accordance with the contract of carriage, is in a State Party to that Convention (art 2.1). The carrier shall be liable for damage resulting from the death or personal injury of a passenger and for the loss or damage of luggage if the event which caused this damage occurred during the carriage and was due to the fault or negligence of the carrier or its employees, or its agents acting within the scope of their competence (art 3.1). The liability of the carrier for the death or personal injury of a passenger is in no case greater than 700,000 francs for each carriage (art 7.1). Where the liability limits laid down in arts 7 and 8 apply, they shall apply to the aggregate of the amounts recoverable in all claims arising out of the death of or personal injury to any one passenger or the loss of or damage to his luggage (art 12.1). No action for damages for the death or personal injury of a passenger, or for the loss or damage of luggage, shall be brought against the carrier or the person acting on behalf of the carrier or in any manner other than that provided for in this Convention (art 14).

It follows from the combination of these provisions that the aforementioned Convention applies only to international maritime transport, as its meaning is defined in art 1.9 of the Convention, and therefore does not apply if the place of departure and the place of destination, as well as the intermediate ports of call, according to the contract or the scheduled route, are located in the same State. If the legislator wanted the special provisions of this Convention to be extended to internal transport, it would have explicitly provided for this, as it has done in the analogous case of the Hague Rules (art 2.1 of Law 2107/1992, ratifying this other Convention). The non-application of the Athens Convention 1974 to domestic transport does not violate the principle of equality established by the provision of art 4.1 of the Constitution, since this provision establishes the equality of the law vis-à-vis Greek citizens, in the sense that the legislature is bound when it regulates substantially similar things, relationships or situations, concerning many categories of persons, not to introduce unjustified exceptions and discrimination, unless they are imposed for reasons of general social or public interest, the existence of which is reviewed by the courts (AP 30/2005). In the present case, the Convention regulates international maritime passenger transport, which involves different risks from those of inland waterway transport. So they are not essentially identical, but for dissimilar and different relationships and situations.

Therefore, the Court of Appeal, which ruled that the special provisions of the above Convention did not apply in this case (which involves, as is accepted, not international transport, in the abovementioned sense, but inland sea transport) did not violate either the substantive provisions of this Convention or art 4.1 of the Constitution.

[For related proceedings, see AP Decision 376/2008 (CMI2414) and AP Decision 381/2008 (CMI1387).]