A traveling pet: “passenger” or “baggage”?

On October 16, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter: ECJ) delivered a judgment[1] on the question of whether a pet travelling with a passenger on a flight should be considered baggage within the meaning of Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention (hereinafter: MC) and whether the associated liability regime as laid down in Article 22(2) of the MC applies to damage and/or loss to a travelling pet. In other words, is a pet that travels with a passenger to be considered as a passenger or as a piece of baggage?

A passenger and her mother had booked plane tickets for a flight from Buenos Aires (Argentina) to Barcelona (Spain) on October 22, 2019. Their dog also traveled with them. Because of the size and weight of the dog, it had to travel in a travel crate in the hold. The passenger handed over the travel crate containing her dog at the check-in desk so that the dog could be taken to the hold of the aircraft. The dog escaped from the travel crate and started running around the plane and has not been found.

The passenger claims compensation from the airline for her non-material damage, which she claims amounts to € 5,000 and she starts legal proceedings before the Spanish commercial court in Madrid. The airline Iberia recognizes its liability and the passenger's right to compensation, but within the limits of the liability regime set out in Article 22(2) of the MC99. This liability regime provides that the air carrier's liability in the event of destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage is limited to 1519 Special Drawing Rights (SDR)[2], which amounts to about €1,800. However, this is the current limit, which is applicable since December 28, 2024. At the time of the flight of these passengers (22 October 2019), the limit was 1000 SDRs, which is about €1,200. Only if the passenger indicates that there is a special interest in delivery to the air carrier when delivering the baggage and pays an increased ticket price, the air carrier must pay the amount of the specified sum to the passenger. This is not the case here.

The Spanish court has doubts as to whether the concept of 'baggage' within the meaning of Article 17(2) of the MC can be understood to mean pets travelling with passengers and whether the maximum compensation provided for in Article 22(2) of the MC applies to pets. The Spanish court considers that animals are sentient beings within the meaning of Article 13 TFEU [3] or within the meaning of Spanish law, they are sentient living beings who have an emotional bond with their owner. And that, according to the Spanish court, the loss of an animal has a negative, psychological impact that cannot generally be compared to the impact experienced when there is only the loss of a lot of items that can be referred to as "baggage".  Under these circumstances, the maximum compensation set out in Article 22(2) of MC does not appear to be appropriate. In addition, the negative psychological impact experienced in the loss of pets cannot be prevented by means of a 'special declaration of interest', according to the Spanish court. Such a declaration relates to the material value of objects.

For that reason, the Spanish court has referred the following question to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling:

'Is Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention, read in conjunction with Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention, to be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to [pets], since they cannot be referred to as "baggage", whether or not as declared?'

The ECJ says the following. The question here is whether the loss of a pet travelling with a passenger on a flight falls within the scope of the "baggage" liability regime of Articles 17(2) and 22(2) of the MC, or within the scope of the regime applicable to "passengers" (Articles 17(1) and 21 of the MC).  The possible explanation that a pet falls under the concept of "passengers" is rejected outright, since Article 1 of the MC distinguishes between persons and baggage. It therefore follows from the clear wording of that provision that the concept of 'persons' corresponds to the concept of 'passengers' and that a domestic animal cannot be treated in the same way as a 'passenger'. It must therefore be assumed that, in the case of air transport, a pet falls within the concept of 'baggage' and that compensation for the damage caused by the animal's loss in the course of that transport is subject to the baggage liability regime in accordance with Articles 17(2) and 22(2) of the MC.  This explanation is also in line with the objectives that formed the basis of the MC. The MC provides for a system of strict liability of air carriers. This means that if damage occurs to baggage during the period of carriage by air, the air carrier is liable for that damage, but this liability is limited to a maximum regardless if the actual damage suffered is higher. Such a system implies that a 'fair balance of interests' is maintained between air carriers and passengers[4]. In order to maintain such a balance, the MC provides in certain cases – in particular, according to Article 22(2) in the event of destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage – for a limitation of the liability of air carriers, whereby the resulting compensation limit must apply [5]'per passenger'. Such a limitation on compensation makes it possible to compensate passengers easily and quickly without the air carriers being subject to a very onerous obligation to pay compensation which is difficult to establish and calculate, which could disrupt or even paralyze their economic activity[6]. The ECJ has also pointed out that the possibility for the passenger to make a special declaration of interest in the delivery of the checked in baggage to the carrier on the basis of Article 22(2) of the MC confirms that the limitation of the air carrier's liability for damage resulting from the loss of baggage,  in the absence of such a declaration , is an absolute limit encompassing both material and non-material damage [7]. If a passenger considers that the limit of liability applicable to the air carrier in the event of damage resulting from the loss of baggage is too low, it is therefore possible, in accordance with Article 22(2) of the MC, to increase that limit by means of that special declaration of interest in delivery and against payment of a possible increased fare,  subject to the agreement of the air carrier.

Furthermore, the ECJ notes that Article 13 TFEU does not prohibit animals from being transported as "baggage" within the meaning of Article 17(2) of the MC and being considered as such in connection with the liability regime provided for in this Convention, provided that the transport takes full account of what is required for the welfare of the animals.

The conclusion of the ECJ is that Article 17(2) in conjunction with Article 12(2) of the MC must be interpreted as meaning that pets are not excluded from the concept of 'baggage' within the meaning of those provisions. A pet must therefore be considered as "baggage" in the context of the liability regime of the MC.