Pets on flights can be classed as baggage, top EU court rules | Court of justice of the European Union

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that pets on flights can be classed as baggage; This means airlines do not need to pay higher compensation if the animal is lost.

Europe’s highest court has been asked to intervene after a dog went missing en route from Buenos Aires to Barcelona, ​​prompting a claim for compensation from its owner.

The court heard the passenger and her mother boarded the plane with dog Mona, who was placed in a special pet crate for the flight.

However, the dog escaped while being taken to the plane and was never found again; This led to a claim for damages of €5,000 (£4,340) for the passenger’s “immaterial damage” and a six-year trial.

However, the court said that the passenger and his mother did not make a specific declaration regarding the luggage at check-in and therefore could not claim for these losses.

Pets are uncommon on European flights but are more common on transatlantic flights and small dogs are allowed in the cabin. Larger dogs, like the one at the center of this case, must be placed in the hold by airlines that allow pet travel.

“The dog got out of the carrier, started running towards the plane and could not be rescued.” court documents to say.

The Spanish court heard the dog was never found despite an intense “active search”, including a campaign launched by passenger Felicísima on social media.

Felicísima said she would never give up on her research, saying it was a “disgrace” that someone in Buenos Aires took her dog and claimed it as his own. “Who knows that Mona is ours, who knows the pain we feel?” he asked in a Facebook post. The case sets a precedent for anyone traveling with a pet who does not provide specific disclosure regarding the contents of the pet crate and the animal is lost.

The relevant airline, Iberia, accepted responsibility for the loss of the pet, arguing that it had exceeded its liability for lost baggage, without making any specific statements regarding the contents of the crate, but did not accept the extent of the claim.

A Spanish judge referred the case to the CJEU to examine a legal issue at the heart of the case: whether the concept of baggage applies under the Montréal Convention, an international treaty that sets out rules on airlines’ liability for losses ranging from death to delays to lost cargo or baggage.

The court said: “The Montréal convention expressly refers to persons and baggage. It therefore follows from the express wording of this provision that the term ‘persons’ includes ‘passengers’, so a pet cannot be considered a ‘passenger’.”

“Therefore, it should be taken into account that for the purposes of air transportation, a pet falls within the concept of ‘baggage’ and compensation for damage resulting from its loss during such transportation is subject to the liability regime established for baggage.”

The judge also stated that an airline’s liability for lost baggage could be determined by any specific declaration regarding the contents, but that was not the case in this case.

The Spanish court ruled that Felicísima was only entitled to 1,578.82 euros (a very small fraction of the 5,000 euros claimed), as no specific explanation had been made about the animal before the flight.

The European Court of Justice said in a statement: “The fact that the protection of animal welfare is an objective of general interest recognized by the European Union does not prevent animals from being carried as ‘baggage’ and assessed as such in terms of liability arising from the loss of an animal.”