2 hours ago
6
Pets on flights can be classified as baggage, the European court of justice (ECJ) has ruled, meaning airlines are not required to pay higher compensation if the animal is lost.
Europe’s highest court was asked to intervene after a dog was lost during a journey from Buenos Aires to Barcelona, triggering a claim for losses from the owner.
The court heard that the passenger and her mother checked into the flight with the dog, Mona, who was put in a special pet crate for the flight.
However, the dog escaped while it was being taken to the plane and was never recovered, prompting a claim of €5,000 (£4,340) for “non-material damage” by the passenger and a six-year court case.
But the passenger and her mother made no special declarations in relation to the baggage when checking in and could not therefore make a claim for these losses, the court said.
Pets are not frequently seen on European flights but are more common in transatlantic flights, with small dogs allowed in the cabin. Larger dogs, like the dog at the centre of this lawsuit, are required to be placed in the hold by those airlines that allow pet travel.
“The dog got out of the carrier, started running near the plane and could not be recovered,” the court papers say.
Despite an intense “active search”, including a campaign on social media launched by Felicísima, the dog has never been recovered, the Spanish court heard.
The case sets a precedent for anyone travelling with pets who does not make a special declaration about the content of the pet crate and suffers the loss of the animal.
The airline involved, Iberia, accepted liability for the loss of the pet but not the size of the claim, arguing it exceeded the liability for lost luggage without any special declarations as to the crate’s contents.
A Spanish judge referred the case to the ECJ to examine a matter of law at the heart of the case: whether the concept of baggage applied under the Montréal convention, an international treaty setting out rules for airlines’ liability for losses ranging from death to delays and lost cargo or baggage.
The court said: “The Montréal convention clearly refers to persons and baggage. It therefore follows from the clear wording of this provision that the term ‘persons’ covers ‘passengers’, such that a pet cannot be considered a ‘passenger’.
“It must therefore be considered that, for the purposes of air transport, a pet falls within the concept of ‘baggage’ and compensation for damage resulting from its loss during such transport is subject to the liability regime laid down for baggage.”
The judge also noted that the liability of an airline for lost baggage could be determined by any special declaration on contents – which did not happen in this case.
As a special declaration about the animal was not made before the flight, Felicísima was only entitled to €1,578.82 – a fraction of the €5,000 claimed – the Spanish court ruled.
In a statement, the ECJ said: “The fact that the protection of animal welfare is an objective of general interest recognised by the European Union does not prevent animals from being transported as ‘baggage’ and from being regarded as such for the purposes of the liability resulting from the loss of an animal.”
