Aviation Anthology Vol 1 2026 - Digital Version - Flipbook - Page 26
What do a suitcase and a pet have in common? The CJEU
clarifies the meaning of “baggage” under the Montreal
Convention 1999 (Case C-281/24, Felicísima v Iberia Líneas
Aéreas de España SA Operadora Unipersonal and IATA España
SLU)
Overview
The Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”)
was asked by a referring court in Madrid (on request
for a preliminary ruling) to determine whether a pet
should be considered “baggage” within the meaning
of Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention 1999 (the
“Convention”) for the purpose of valuing damages in the
event of a loss.
Background
By way of a brief background to the case in Madrid,
a passenger on a Spanish airline was travelling on an
international flight with their pet dog which had to
be carried in the hold, due to its size and weight. The
passenger checked in the pet carrier containing the
dog, but did not make a special declaration of interest
in delivery at destination when the dog was handed
over. During loading, the dog escaped and was lost.
The passenger made a claim for EUR 5,000 against the
airline for non-material damages. The airline accepted
liability, however it argued that its liability should
be limited in accordance with the limit specified for
baggage at Article 22(2) of the Convention, which at the
time was 1,131 Special Drawing Rights (EUR 1,600).
and “baggage” are not interchangeable and there are
distinct provisions relating to each. The concept of
“persons” relates to passengers. This interpretation,
taken together with the travaux préparatoires of the
Convention, make it clear that pets, albeit sentient living
beings, were not intended to be regarded as passengers
and as such, must be considered as “baggage”.
Conclusion
It follows that the liability of an air carrier for the
destruction, loss, damage or delay of a pet carried
as checked or unchecked baggage must be limited
in accordance with Article 22(2). Should a passenger
consider that the limit prescribed is not sufficient, at the
time the checked baggage is handed over, they should
make a special interest in delivery at destination, and
pay a supplementary fee, if required, subject to the air
carrier’s approval.
In answer to the question, in terms of international
carriage by air, both a pet and a suitcase are considered
to be “baggage”.
In its judgment of Case C-218/24 on 16 October 20251,
the CJEU determined that in respect of air travel, a pet
cannot be excluded from the concept of “baggage”, and
compensation for the loss of a pet during carriage by air
is governed by the liability provisions of Articles 17(2)
and 22(2) of the Convention. In reaching this decision,
the court considered paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the
Convention which states that the “Convention applies
to all international carriage of persons, baggage or
cargo performed by aircraft for reward…” It is evident
from the wording of Article 1 that the terms “persons”
26
DAC Beachcroft
Aviation Anthology 2026 - Volume I
