US$

km

ブログ
リーガル・メモ:VIPの乗客、情報開示義務、フランス法における「輸送のリスク」</trp-post-container

リーガル・メモフランス法におけるVIP乗客、開示義務、「輸送リスク

レオ・ベスッティ
によって 
レオ・ベスッティ
16分読了
リーガル
5月 20, 2025

Lack of Disclosure Obligation: Under French law, passengers – even government officials or VIPs – are not required to announce their identity or official status to a taxi or VTC (chauffeured car) driver. Neither the Code des transports nor the Code de la sécurité intérieure imposes any such duty on passengers. In practice, when a person books a private transport, they do so as a private individual; there is no statute or regulation compelling them to inform the driver of their rank or role in government. This holds true even for authority figures. For example, a minister or foreign dignitary using a private taxi/VTC is under no legal obligation to divulge their position – they are entitled to travel incognito if they wish. By contrast, the onus is on the driver and operator to comply with licensing and safety rules, not on the passenger to disclose personal details.

Official Guidance: Consumer and transport authorities do not list passenger self-identification as a requirement. The French Ministry of Economy’s guidance for VTC users focuses on vehicle and driver compliance (vignette, insurance, etc.) and fare transparency, but says nothing about any requirement for passengers to reveal their identity. In short, passengers have a right to privacy. Unless a law enforcement officer lawfully requests a passenger’s ID (for security or ticket inspection reasons in public transport), a private driver cannot demand identification or status disclosure as a condition of service. VIPs enjoy the same privacy as any customer; indeed, revealing one’s official status to a private driver is often avoided for security and protocol reasons.

Conclusion: There is no French statute or regulation that mandates a passenger to announce they are a public official or VIP to a taxi/VTC driver. Any expectation to the contrary is unfounded in law. Thus, a driver cannot legally fault passengers for “not mentioning” their status when booking a ride.

2. “Transport Risk” – Definition in French Law and Insurance

General Meaning: 用語 “risque de transport” in French law typically refers to risks inherent in transportation, such as accidents, damage to cargo, or dangerous goods. It appears in contexts like marine cargo insurance and hazardous materials transport – not in reference to a passenger’s identity. In passenger transport, “risk” usually means the ordinary risks of road travel (accident liability, etc.), which are covered by mandatory insurance. There is no legal category of “transport risk” tied to carrying high-profile persons. In other words, French transport law does not recognize “VIP passenger” as a special risk that alters the legal framework of a ride.

Mandatory Insurance Covers Passengers: All licensed drivers (taxi or VTC) must carry professional liability insurance covering bodily injury and property damage to passengers. This is a requirement of Article L3120-4 of the Code des transports. The insurance must be valid for all paying passengers, regardless of who they are. Crucially, the law makes no distinction based on a passenger’s status – an ordinary rider and a government minister are equally covered under the driver’s policy. If a particular passenger posed an extraordinary security hazard (e.g. a known target of violence), that is not a standard exclusion in insurance; rather, it would be a matter for specialized services (see below). Generally, insurance and liability regimes assume the driver is carrying ordinary passengers and charge premiums accordingly. If a driver intends to regularly transport VIPs who entail unusual security concerns, it is up to the driver to arrange any special insurance or precautions in advance – not to surcharge the passenger later.

VIPs and Security Services: In France, when there is a genuine security risk related to transporting a VIP (e.g. threat of attack or kidnapping), the situation falls under security protocols, not basic transport law. High-profile officials usually travel with official security drivers or protection officers from the Interior Ministry’s protection service, precisely to manage those risks. Alternatively, private “close protection” chauffeurs can be hired; these are essentially bodyguards who drive, and they must be licensed under the private security laws (Livre VI of the Code de la sécurité intérieure). Such services involve trained security drivers, armored vehicles, escort cars, etc., and naturally come at higher cost – but they are governed by security regulations and private contracts, not by the ordinary taxi/VTC fare rules. Notably, providing personal security (protection rapprochée) is a separate licensed activity. A standard VTC driver is 違う authorized to unilaterally upgrade a ride into a “security transport” and charge extra without prior arrangement. In summary, French law acknowledges that transporting someone under threat is a special situation, but handling that requires forethought (and often law enforcement or licensed security involvement), rather than an ex post facto fare hike.

No Automatic Risk Tariff: Nowhere in French statutes or standard insurance policies is there a predefined “transport risk” surcharge for carrying VIPs or officials. Unlike, say, hazardous freight (where extra insurance and protocols are required), passengers are not categorized by risk level in transport law. Thus, a driver’s claim that a passenger’s official status “constitutes a transport risk so the tariff is not the same” finds no support in French legal definitions. It is a self-invented concept in this context.

3. Tariff Regulations for Taxis and VTC – No VIP Surcharges

French law tightly regulates how fares are set for both taxis and VTCs, leaving no room for ad hoc increases due to a passenger’s identity:

  • Taxi Fares are Regulated: Licensed taxis must charge according to official tariffs.  Each department’s Prefect sets the maximum rates annually by arrêté (prefectoral order). These cover the base pickup charge, price per kilometer, and time-based rates, as well as any authorized surcharges (such as night service, extra passengers, luggage, or advance booking fees). There is no approved surcharge for transporting a VIP or “high-risk” passenger. The Ministry of Economy (DGCCRF) explicitly notes: “Les tarifs des courses de taxi sont réglementés. Les tarifs maximums sont fixés par arrêtés préfectoraux” – taxi fares are regulated with maximums set by the government. While taxi drivers may offer discounts below the meter (or waive the fare in rare goodwill cases), they cannot lawfully demand more than the metered/authorized amount. Charging an extra €700 because a passenger is a dignitary would violate these regulations and likely be considered an illegal overcharge or even attempted fraud. It could also constitute a form of discrimination or abusive practice. In fact, taxi drivers have been penalized in the past for overcharging tourists or vulnerable riders; a fortiori, inventing a “VIP risk fee” has no legal basis. Any taxi driver must, by law, treat all customers under the same fare structure – whether the client is a local, a tourist, a celebrity, or a government minister.
  • VTC (Chauffeur-Driven Car) Fares are Contractual and Fixed in Advance: Unlike taxis, VTC services (Uber-style or private hire vehicles) have freely set fares, but they too are constrained by contract and consumer law. The Code des transports requires that VTC services be provided “dans des conditions fixées à l’avance entre les parties”. In practice, this means the price or a clear pricing formula must be agreed before the ride begins. Commonly, platforms or chauffeurs quote a flat fare upon booking (especially for long inter-city trips), or a pricing formula (distance/time) that the customer consents to. The driver cannot unilaterally alter the fare during or after the ride unless the customer requests a change in the journey (e.g. a new destination or additional stop requiring fare adjustment as per the contract terms). French consumer protection views an agreed transport fare as binding; trying to increase it later without a valid, contractually-stipulated reason would be treated as a breach of contract at best, or a deceptive commercial practice at worst.
  • Dynamic Pricing Limits: While VTC platforms may use dynamic pricing, the legally relevant point is that the pricing model is disclosed in advance and applies generally, not personally. For instance, a platform can charge more during peak demand or bad weather – the Ministry notes that VTC prices are “librement fixés” and can rise due to “motifs divers… telles que des intempéries ou des grèves” (various factors like weather or transit strikes that increase demand). These surcharges are impersonal and based on market conditions, not on who the passenger is. Nowhere do the rules allow “You are VIP, therefore extra €700.” In the case at hand, if a long-distance VTC trip was pre-priced (say €X for a 360-mile journey), that price is final. Even surge pricing must be known by the passenger at booking time (the app or driver would quote the higher fare before confirmation). A post-hoc demand for more money purely because the driver discovered the passenger’s identity violates the principle of prior agreement and transparency in pricing.
  • No Hidden Fees: Both taxi and VTC regulations stress price transparency. Taxis must display their fares and provide receipts showing any authorized supplement. VTCs must provide a clear quote or contract. An undisclosed “risk fee” is not an authorized supplement on any receipt. If a driver attempted to add such a charge, a passenger could rightfully refuse, and authorities (DGCCRF or police) would back the passenger. In short, the fare is the fare – it cannot be inflated retroactively due to the customer’s identity.

Professional Standards: Industry associations and professional ethics echo these rules. Drivers are expected to treat clients equally and not exploit personal information. For example, the French national group for VIP chauffeurs (SNCTP) prides itself on serving high-profile clients with discretion and professionalism, upholding the tradition of the old “grande remise” luxury chauffeurs. Nowhere in professional standards is it suggested that a driver should charge an unforeseen premium if a client turns out to be a VIP. On the contrary, a hallmark of professionalism is to honor the agreed service conditions irrespective of who steps into the car.

4. Refuting Mr. Mimun’s Claim Under French Law and Practice

Mr. Nasim Mimun’s assertion – “When I received the transport request, the name of the victims was not mentioned nor that they were authority figures, which is what constitutes a transport risk so the tariff is not the same” – is untenable under French law. Several arguments dismantle this claim:

  • No Disclosure Duty by Clients: As established, clients had no duty to announce their identities. The fact that the booking did not mention the passengers’ names or status is normal and lawful. Private citizens (even if they happen to be officials) are entitled to book transport without fanfare. Therefore, the premise that the customers ought to have disclosed their VIP status is wrong in law. The driver cannot blame the customers for his own lack of knowledge when there was no obligation for them to inform him in the first place.
  • “Transport Risk” Not Recognized for VIPs: Mr. Mimun’s notion that having an authority figure on board “constitutes a transport risk” is not supported by any transport or insurance regulation. Carrying a high-profile person does not magically transform a regular ride into a different legal category. Unless the driver had specific security concerns communicated and agreed beforehand (which would effectively be a separate service contract), the ride remains a standard contract of carriage. There is no legal tariff schedule that differentiates “normal ride” vs “high-risk VIP ride” for taxis or VTCs. The driver’s personal feeling of increased risk is irrelevant to the fare – the fare must follow the agreed terms or regulated meter. In fact, if Mr. Mimun truly believed the trip was exceptionally dangerous (e.g., he claimed to fear the passenger had a weapon and that they were followed ), the correct course of action would have been to involve law enforcement or refuse the fare at the outset, not to extort additional payment. By proceeding with the trip, he accepted the normal contractual risk of doing business as a driver.
  • Contract and Fare Were Set: Reports indicate the fare had been paid or agreed in full before departure . Under Article L3122-1 of the Transport Code, VTC services operate on pre-arranged conditions . Mr. Mimun, an “experienced VIP cabbie,” presumably quoted (or accepted) a price for the 360-mile journey from Italy to France. Once that contract was formed, he was bound by it. Unilaterally declaring mid-journey that the price is now higher because he realized the passenger is the UK Foreign Secretary is a breach of contract. French civil code principles (Article 1103 Code civil: contracts legally formed have force of law between the parties) would make the initial agreement enforceable as-is. The attempt to renegotiate under duress – “pay me €700 more or else” – has no legal footing. Indeed, Mr. Mimun’s conduct led to criminal charges (theft), underscoring that authorities view his claim as an after-the-fact excuse rather than any legitimate right.
  • No Tariff Exception Justifies €700 Surcharge: Whether treating this as a taxi or VTC scenario, no lawful pricing mechanism yields an extra €700 simply for VIP status. If he were a taxi, the meter plus allowed supplements would determine the fare; demanding €700 beyond that would violate regulated pricing. If he were a VTC driver, the only possible surcharges would have been those agreed (e.g. tolls, waiting time if in contract) or platform-sanctioned increases (like surge at booking time). A post hoc “VIP fee” is absent from both the taxi fare schedule and any VTC terms of service. It appears to be an arbitrary figure Mr. Mimun invented. Such an action could be deemed an abus de confiance (abuse of trust) or pratique commerciale trompeuse (deceptive practice) under consumer protection law, since the customers were asked to pay more under a false pretext.
  • 業界標準と誠実さ: フランスのプロの運転手は、誠実に行動し、乗客を搾取することなく快適性と安全性を確保することが期待されています。運転手が特定の顧客のために特別な手配(例えば、武装護衛車両や追加の警備)を本当に必要とする場合、これは提案され、交渉されなければなりません。 事前に (多くの場合、安全な VIP 輸送を専門とする企業を通じて)明確なサービスとして提供されます。通常の予約を受け付けた後、後になって「リスク」を理由に価格を高くすべきだったと主張することは、ミムン氏が輸送契約に内在する信頼を侵害したことになります。彼の主張は、本質的に、彼がサービスに遡って価格を再設定しようとしたことを認めており、そのような行為を許可する規制はありません。フランスの消費者法典(第 L121-1 条以降)は、当事者間の合意による場合を除き、サービス提供者が契約成立後に消費者の不利益になるように価格を変更することを禁じています。ここではそのような合意はありませんでした。
  • セキュリティ法の重要性: もしミムン氏が、その乗車にセキュリティ上のリスクが伴うと本気で考えていた場合(例えば、乗客が銃器を持っていると信じており、車が追跡していると述べていた場合)、セキュリティ上の懸念の領域に踏み込んだことで、彼は通常の運転手の範囲外で行動していたと言えるでしょう。フランスの法律では、武装した乗客の対応や追跡者の回避は、標準的なVTCの職務範囲には含まれず、警備サービスに該当すると判断されます。既述の通り、これらのサービスには特別な免許と訓練が必要です。ミムン氏は実際の警護要員や装甲車を提供したわけではなく、単なる運転手でした。彼は法的に警備業者として従事していなかったため、「セキュリティ割増料金」を遡って請求することはできません。実際、彼自身の発言が彼を弱体化させるでしょう。もしクライアントが誰であるかのために本当に自分の命が危険にさらされると恐れていたのであれば、なぜ追加料金を要求するのではなく、旅行を中止するか当局に通報しなかったのか疑問視されるでしょう。彼の「輸送リスク」に関する正当化は、法的に根拠がないだけでなく、プロの行動規範に反しているように見えます。

支援機関: フランスの運輸当局や信頼できる業界団体は、ミムン氏の立場を支持しないでしょう。それどころか、運転手が見積もりを守り、すべての顧客を公平に扱うことが重要視されています。フランス運輸利用者団体全国連盟(FNAUT)は、乗客に権利を啓発する中で、その点を強調しています。 VTCの料金は事前に確定されています そして、運転手が契約を尊重しない場合、問題は調停されたり、法的に追求されたりする可能性があるということです。また、正当な理由のない差別やサービスの拒否に対しては強い姿勢を示しています。「VIPであること」は、古典的な差別のリストでは保護された根拠ではありませんが、誰かに追加料金を課すことは恣意的です。 彼らのアイデンティティのために 不当な商慣行と見なされる可能性が高いでしょう。例えば、パリ警視庁はタクシー運転手に対し、過剰な料金請求や乗車拒否行為は制裁につながる可能性があると警告しており、法律はタクシー/VTCが料金規定に違反したり、欺瞞的な行為を行ったりした場合に罰則を定めています。

最後に、ミムン氏に対する窃盗の刑事告訴は多くを物語っています。乗客が不当な追加料金を拒否した際に荷物を持ち去ったことで、彼は民事上の違反を刑事犯罪に変えました。彼の「輸送リスク」という理屈は、フランスの検察官を納得させませんでした。法的観点から見ると、彼の主張は... 法的根拠のない言い訳フランスの裁判所または規制当局は、議論されたすべての理由(開示義務なし、リスクに基づく運賃なし、運賃契約違反、および潜在的な消費者法違反)に基づいて、それを反論するでしょう。

5. 結論

結論として、フランスの交通法と規制は、 乗客が役人またはVIPであるという理由で、運転手が一方的に運賃を引き上げることはサポートされていませんVIPを含む乗客は、身元を秘匿する当然の権利を有しており、そうすることは法律や契約に違反しません。VIP乗客による「輸送リスク」の増大という概念は、フランスの法律や標準的な保険では認められていません。それは、事前に取り決められた特別な警備輸送の手配においてのみ存在し、予期せぬ料金として請求されることは決してありません。両方の Code des transports 業界標準では、乗車料金は客観的な要素(距離、時間、需要状況)によって決定され、事前に合意されるか、規制される必要があることが明確にされています – 乗客が誰であるかによって決まることはありませんミムン氏のように、これに反する主張は、法定の枠組みによって決定的に反論することができます。規制されたタクシー料金規則から、VTCの契約前要件、包括的な契約法まで、すべてが同じ結果を示しています。アドホックな「VIPサーチャージ」を課そうとする試みは、違法であり、職業倫理に反します。

情報源

  • 輸送法 (特にVTCの事前取り決めに関するL3122-1条);L3120-4条(保険要件)。
  • 経済省 – タクシーおよびVTC規制に関するDGCCRFガイダンス。
  • SNCTP(警護運転手) – VIPドライバーの専門家協会(業界慣行を示す)。
  • 報道発表 Lammy対Mimunの運賃紛争 (The Sun, 2025年5月17日) – Mimun氏の主張と事件の背景を引用。
  • FNAUTと消費者の権利に関する資料(乗客の権利と運賃の手配について)

コメント

コメントを残す

コメント

お名前

電子メール