Juristisches Memo: VIP-Passagiere, Offenlegungspflichten und "Transportrisiko" im französischen Recht

1. No Legal Duty for Passengers to Disclose VIP Status

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: Der Begriff “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 nicht 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.
  
• Industry Norms and Good Faith: Professional drivers in France are expected to act in good faith and ensure passenger comfort and safety without exploiting them. If a driver truly requires special arrangements for certain clients (for instance, armed escort vehicles or additional security), this must be proposed and negotiated in advance as a distinct service (often via companies specializing in secure VIP transport). By accepting a normal booking and only later insisting it should have been priced higher due to “risk,” Mr. Mimun violated the trust inherent in the transport contract. His argument essentially admits that he attempted to retroactively re-price the service, which no regulation permits. The French consumer code (Article L121-1 and following) prohibits service providers from modifying the price to the detriment of consumers after a contract is formed, except in ways agreed by the parties. There was no such agreement here.
  
• Relevance of Security Law: If Mr. Mimun genuinely thought the ride entailed security risks (e.g. he mentioned he believed the passenger had a firearm and that cars were following them), then by stepping into the realm of security concerns he was arguably acting outside the scope of a normal driver. French law would say that handling an armed passenger or evading pursuers is not part of a standard VTC remit – it edges into security services. As noted, those services require special licensing and training. Mr. Mimun did not provide an actual protection detail or armored car; he was just a driver. He cannot retroactively charge a “security premium” when legally he was never engaged as a security provider. In fact, his own statements would undermine him: if he truly feared for his life due to who the client was, one would question why he did not abort the trip or call authorities rather than demand extra money. His justification about “transport risk” appears not only legally baseless but also contradictory to professional conduct.
  

Supporting Authority: No French transport authority or reputable industry group would endorse Mr. Mimun’s position. On the contrary, the expectation is that drivers honor their quotes and treat all clients fairly. The French National Federation of Transport User Associations (FNAUT), in educating passengers on their rights, emphasizes that VTC fares are fixed upfront and that any issues can be mediated or pursued legally if the driver does not respect the contract. There is also a strong stance against discrimination or refusal of service without just cause. While “being a VIP” is not a protected ground in the classic discrimination list, arbitrarily charging someone more because of their identity would likely be viewed as an unfair commercial practice. The Prefecture of Police in Paris, for instance, warns taxi drivers that acts of overcharging or refusing service can lead to sanctions, and the law provides penalties for taxi/VTC who violate pricing rules or engage in deceptive conduct.

Finally, the criminal charge of theft against Mr. Mimun speaks volumes: by driving off with the passengers’ luggage when they refused the unlawful surcharge, he converted a civil breach into a criminal offense. His “transport risk” rationale did not convince French prosecutors. In legal terms, his claim is an excuse with no legal merit. A French court or regulator would refute it on all the grounds discussed – no disclosure duty, no risk-based fare, violation of fare agreement, and potential consumer law breaches.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, French transport laws and regulations provide no support for a driver unilaterally raising a fare because a passenger is an official or VIP. Passengers, including VIPs, have every right to withhold their identity; doing so breaches no law or contract. The concept of a heightened “transport risk” due to a VIP passenger is not recognized in French law or standard insurance – it exists only in specialized security transport arrangements made in advance, never as a surprise fee. Both the Code des transports and industry standards make clear that the price of a ride must be determined by objective factors (distance, time, demand conditions) and agreed upfront or regulated – never by who the passenger is. Any claim to the contrary, like Mr. Mimun’s, can be decisively refuted by the statutory framework: from the regulated taxi tariff rules to the VTC pre-contracting requirements and overarching contract law, all point to the same result. The attempt to impose an ad hoc “VIP surcharge” is unlawful and against the ethics of the profession.

Quellen:

• Code des transports (notably Article L3122-1 on VTC pre-arranged conditions) ; Article L3120-4 (insurance requirement) .
  
• Ministry of Economy – DGCCRF guidance on Taxi and VTC regulations .
  
• SNCTP (Chauffeurs de protection) – Professional association for VIP drivers (illustrating industry practice) .
  
• Press report on Lammy vs. Mimun fare dispute (The Sun, 17 May 2025) – quoting Mr. Mimun’s claims and case context .
  
• FNAUT and consumer rights materials on passenger rights and fare arrangements .