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).
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" 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".
[1] C-218/24 - Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España (Notion de "bagages")
