In commercial litigation, jurisdiction can be every bit as important as the merits of the dispute itself. The forum in which a claim is brought may influence litigation costs, strategy, evidential issues and, ultimately, claims exposure.
As air passengers increasingly purchase tickets through airline websites, mobile applications, and online travel platforms, an important question arises: can the location from which a passenger books a flight affect the courts before which a claim may be brought under Article 33 of the Montreal Convention 1999 ("MC99")?
That question came before the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") in Case C-876/24, I.G.V. v Vueling Airlines SA, following a reference for a preliminary ruling by the Spanish court, in a claim arising from the loss of checked baggage on a domestic flight in Spain. Although the claim itself was relatively modest, the dispute raised an important question about the operation of Article 33 in an era where contracts of carriage are increasingly concluded online.
During the negotiation of MC99, the Contracting States debated whether a passenger's place of residence should provide a separate basis of jurisdiction. They ultimately adopted that approach only for passenger death and injury claims through the so-called "fifth jurisdiction" provided by Article 33(2). The question before the CJEU in Vueling was whether, in the context of online contracting, a passenger's place of residence could effectively be brought within Article 33(1) by treating it as the place where the carrier had a place of business through which the contract was made.
Online booking meets a convention framework
The way in which airline tickets are purchased has changed dramatically over the past century. Whilst online booking and electronic ticketing were already beginning to reshape the aviation industry when MC99 was adopted in 1999, the jurisdictional framework reflected in Article 33 has its origins in the Warsaw Convention of 1929. The concepts underpinning that framework were developed in an era when contracts of carriage were ordinarily concluded through airline offices and travel agents. Today's passengers, by contrast, commonly purchase tickets through websites, online platforms and mobile applications.
The CJEU approached the issue against the backdrop of one of the Convention's central objectives: ensuring a predictable and balanced jurisdictional framework for carriers and passengers alike. As the Court observed, "by selling air transport services online, those carriers must not bear the risk of being sued before courts anywhere in the world where the online offer is available."
The facts
On 8 November 2023, the claimant purchased a ticket for a domestic flight between Madrid and Barcelona operated by Vueling Airlines SA, whose registered office is in Barcelona. The booking was made online through an online travel platform from the claimant's home in Fuenlabrada, a municipality to the south-west of Madrid. Checked baggage was subsequently purchased as an ancillary service at Madrid Airport.
The baggage was lost during the flight between Madrid and Barcelona. Following that loss, the claimant commenced proceedings before her local court in Fuenlabrada. The referring Spanish court sought guidance from the CJEU on three questions:
- Whether the jurisdictional provisions of MC99 apply to carriage taking place wholly within a single Member State
- Whether Article 33(1) of MC99 is to be interpreted as meaning that "where [the carrier] has a place of business through which the contract has been made" may include the principal and permanent residence of the passenger, when the contract was entered into online
- Whether jurisdiction should be determined by reference to the contract of carriage or a subsequently purchased ancillary baggage service
The available forums under the Montreal Convention
One of the objectives of both the Warsaw Convention 1929 and its successor, MC99, was to provide certainty as to where claims may be brought. Article 33 therefore limits a claimant's choice of forum to a defined number of jurisdictions connected to either the carrier or the carriage itself.
Under Article 33(1), proceedings may be brought before the courts of the carrier's domicile, its principal place of business, the place of business through which the contract was made, or the place of destination. MC99 introduced a limited residence-based jurisdiction for claims arising from passenger death or injury through Article 33(2). It was the limits of that jurisdiction, and whether they could be expanded in the context of online booking, that lay at the heart of the reference.
The CJEU's decision
The Court's conclusions on the three principal questions referred to it can be summarised as follows:
- First, it held that, by virtue of Regulation (EC) No 2027/97, the jurisdictional provisions of MC99 apply not only to international carriage but also to claims arising from the loss of baggage occurring during domestic air carriage within a Member State
- Secondly, the Court rejected the argument that a passenger's residence becomes an available forum under Article 33(1) merely because a ticket was purchased online from that location. Looking at the wording of Article 33, the wider structure of the Convention and its objectives, the Court concluded that the available jurisdictions are linked either to the carrier's place of business or to the carriage itself. The Court attached particular significance to Article 33(2), which expressly introduces the passenger's residence as an additional jurisdiction, but only for death and injury claims. Referring to the Convention's drafting history, it noted that a broader residence-based jurisdiction had been debated during the negotiations leading to MC99 but was ultimately adopted only in that limited context. Extending Article 33(1) to online bookings in the manner argued for by the passenger would therefore undermine the predictability and legal certainty which the Convention seeks to achieve.
- Thirdly, the Court confirmed that the relevant contract for jurisdictional purposes is the contract of carriage itself. The subsequent purchase of an ancillary baggage service does not create a separate connecting factor for jurisdiction and cannot alter the analysis applicable to the underlying contract of carriage.
The Advocate General's Opinion, 26 February 2026
The Court's conclusions were broadly consistent with the Opinion of Advocate General Spielmann delivered on 26 February 2026. Whilst the Advocate General and the Court reached the same result, their reasoning differed in emphasis. The Advocate General explored in greater detail how Article 33(1) should operate in the context of modern online booking practices, observing that passengers now commonly purchase tickets online without any meaningful connection to a physical sales location.
Rather than treating a passenger's residence as the relevant connecting factor, he suggested that, in the case of online bookings, the appropriate point of connection might be the airport from which the carrier operates and checks in passengers and baggage. As the Advocate General observed, the "essential element" was "the permanent and recognisable establishment of an air carrier in a place in which the passenger can make contact with it". The Court, by contrast, relied more heavily on the text, structure and drafting history of Article 33, as well as the need for legal certainty and predictability.
Uniformity as a guiding principle
The CJEU's decision sits firmly within the wider jurisprudence of both the Warsaw and Montreal regimes. In Siddhu v British Airways plc [1997] AC 430, Lord Hope observed that "what was sought to be achieved was a uniform international code". That principle of uniformity has informed judicial treatment of the Convention framework for decades. The decision in Vueling follows the same path.
The need for clarification was particularly acute because courts in different jurisdictions had reached different conclusions. The referring court noted that Canadian courts had rejected the proposition that a passenger's residence could become relevant merely because a ticket was purchased online, whereas earlier decisions in Spain and Italy had suggested a broader interpretation. Against that backdrop, the judgment represents an important step towards promoting a consistent application of Article 33 in the context of online ticket sales.
Why it matters
For aviation claims handlers, insurers, and airlines, the judgment provides welcome certainty.
Had the Court accepted the claimant's argument, airlines could potentially have faced baggage claims in a considerably broader range of jurisdictions. In an age where tickets are routinely purchased online from homes, offices, and mobile devices around the world, the result could have exposed carriers to claims in jurisdictions far beyond those traditionally contemplated by Article 33.
Instead, the Court confirmed that the location from which a passenger books a flight online does not become an additional forum under Article 33. Equally, the separate purchase of a baggage service does not generate a distinct jurisdictional analysis divorced from the underlying contract of carriage.
Conclusion
The decision in Vueling provides important clarification of how Article 33 of the Montreal Convention operates in the age of online booking, outside the specific jurisdictional regime applicable to passenger death and injury claims.
The Court's reasoning extended beyond the practical implications of online booking. It placed significant weight on the structure of Article 33 and on the negotiating history of MC99, noting that a broader residence-based jurisdiction had been debated during the Convention's drafting but ultimately adopted only for passenger death and injury claims.
Airline tickets may now be bought with a few taps on a mobile phone rather than across the counter of a travel agent. Vueling confirms that, for now, the growth of online contracting has not altered the jurisdictional balance embodied in Article 33.
