In the Nice criminal court, a hearing was held this week where Air France had to justify its behavior towards the Filippini couple. Mr. Filippini is visually impaired, and his wife is blind. They were surprised when Air France required them, in 2003, to pay for an escort for their 6-month-old newborn traveling with them.
“Safety regulation,” argued Air France. “Discrimination against disabled persons considered incapable of ensuring their children’s safety” during the flight, but especially in the event of a plane accident, retorted the young couple.
Three years ago, a summary judge had allowed the entire family to fly without having to pay for an escort, but the question had not yet been settled in principle.
The prosecutor did not note any intent to harm
Regarding this particular case, the Attorney General himself found it difficult to support the accusation. The reason being: there was no proof of intent to discriminate against the Filippini couple specifically.
The defense argued that it was merely applying its interpretation of the precautionary principle, which is also present in both French law and international conventions. The regulations remain vague regarding the concrete measures to be taken for implementation, and airplane safety has been a sensitive subject in recent years, on which companies base their reputation.
Adhering to this precautionary principle, Air France deemed it appropriate to have the Filippinis’ newborn accompanied, rather than having any desire to discriminate against the Filippini couple specifically,” argued defense attorneys Me Fabrice Pradon and Me Fernand Garnault. According to these same individuals, the accusation does not provide evidence of any malicious intent toward the Filippini couple.
For the prosecution’s lawyer, “the fact of imposing something not required by any regulation under the pretext that the Filippinis are not normal people” should be sufficient to demonstrate the intent to discriminate. The prosecutor himself did not find any intent to harm the couple specifically.
Legal ambiguity regarding the concept of a responsible person for a minor on board a plane
“On other occasions, such conditions have never been required of us,” interrupted Mr. Filippini with a choked voice in the courtroom. Indeed, this does not surprise Air France’s lawyers, who see it as the result of the imprecision left by the texts.
The Filippinis are demanding that Air France be ordered to pay 40,000 euros, while the company asks for 1 euro in symbolic reparation for an abusive procedure. The judges’ decision will be announced on September 17.
