Pedro Espada Sánchez and Others v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA.
Date: 2012-11-22
20. Since the provisions of that convention have been an integral part of the EU legal order from the date on which the convention entered into force, the Court has jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling concerning its interpretation, in accordance with the rules of interpretation of general international law, which are binding on the European Union (see, to that effect, Case C‑386/08 Brita  [2010] ECR I‑1289, paragraphs 39 to 42, and Case C‑63/09 Walz  [2010] ECR I‑4239, paragraphs 20 and 22 and the case‑law cited).
21. In respect of that last point, the Court has held that, even though the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969 does not bind either the European Union or all its Member States, that convention reflects the rules of customary international law which, as such, are binding upon the EU institutions and form part of the legal order of the European Union ( Brita , paragraph 42).
22. Article 31 of the Montreal Convention accordingly states that a treaty is to be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context and in the light of its object and purpose (Case C‑70/09 Hengartner and Gasser  [2010] ECR I‑7233, paragraph 36 and the case‑law cited, and Walz , paragraph 23 and the case‑law cited).
25. In addition, it is apparent from Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention that the air carrier is liable for damage linked to the loss of any of the baggage belonging to the passengers, whether checked or unchecked. That finding is also confirmed by the use, without additional clarification, in Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention, of the term ‘baggage’, defined in Article 17(4) of that convention as meaning – unless otherwise specified – ‘both checked baggage and unchecked baggage.’
26. That interpretation cannot be called in question by Article 3(3) of the Montreal Convention, which provides that ‘[t]he carrier shall deliver to the passenger a baggage identification tag for each piece of checked baggage.’ Contrary to the assertions made by Iberia and the European Commission, that provision – as the German Government has correctly argued – merely imposes on an air carrier an obligation to ensure that checked baggage is identifiable and cannot support the inference that the right to compensation in the event of loss of baggage and the limits placed on that right, referred to in Article 22(2) of the convention, apply solely for the benefit of passengers who have checked in one or more pieces of baggage.
29. In that connection, it should be noted that the third recital in the preamble to the Montreal Convention recognises ‘the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers in international carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation based on the principle of restitution’. Those two objectives would necessarily be called in question if a passenger whose items were placed in baggage checked in by another passenger on the same flight could not ob tain individual compensation for the damage which he has sustained as a result of their loss.
30. Moreover, given those objectives, the parties to that convention decided to establish a system of strict liability which implies, none the less, that an ‘equitable balance of interests’ be maintained, in particular as regards the interests of air carriers and of passengers (see Walz , paragraphs 31 and 33). In order to maintain such a balance, the Montreal Convention makes provision for the liability of air carriers to be limited in certain situations – in particular, in accordance with Article 22(2) of that convention, in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage – with the resulting limitation of compensation to be applied ‘per passenger’ (see Walz , paragraph 34).
34. Next, that potential burden cannot be regarded as undermining or paralysing the economic activity of those carriers. It must be emphasised that the liability limits referred to in paragraph 29 above operate for the benefit of air carriers and that, as regards baggage, the limit laid down constitutes, pursuant to Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention, a maximum limit for compensation, which cannot therefore accrue automatically and in full to any passenger losing his baggage. In addition, pursuant to Article 17(2) of that convention, the carrier is not liable if and to the extent that the damage ‘resulted from the inherent defect, quality or vice of the baggage’.
35. Lastly, it should be recalled that, for the purposes of the compensation provided for under Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention, it is for the passengers concerned, subject to review by the national court, to establish to the requisite legal standard the contents of the lost baggage and the fact that the baggage checked in in another passenger’s name did in fact contain items belonging to another passenger on the same flight. In that connection, the national court may have regard to the fact that those passengers are members of the same family, that they bought their tickets together or that they checked in at the same time.