1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 17(2) and Article 22(2) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38) (‘the Montreal Convention’), which entered into force, so far as the European Union is concerned, on 28 June 2004.
2 The request has been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Felicísima, a passenger on an international flight, and, on the other, Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA Operadora Unipersonal (‘Iberia’), an air carrier, and IATA España SLU concerning compensation for non-material damage suffered by Felicísima following the loss of her pet on a flight operated by that carrier.
3 According to the third paragraph of the preamble to the Montreal Convention, the States Parties ‘[recognise] 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’.
4 The fifth paragraph of that preamble states that ‘collective State action for further harmonisation and codification of certain rules governing international carriage by air through a new Convention is the most adequate means of achieving an equitable balance of interests’.
5 Article 1 of that convention, entitled ‘Scope of application’, provides, in paragraph 1: ‘This Convention applies to all international carriage of persons, baggage or cargo performed by aircraft for reward. It applies equally to gratuitous carriage by aircraft performed by an air transport undertaking.’
6 Article 17 of the Convention, entitled ‘Death and injury of passengers - damage to baggage’, in Chapter III of the Montreal Convention, in turn entitled ‘Liability of the carrier and extent of compensation for damage’, is worded as follows: ‘1. The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking. 2. The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of destruction or loss of, or of damage to, checked baggage upon condition only that the event which caused the destruction, loss or damage took place on board the aircraft or during any period within which the checked baggage was in the charge of the carrier. However, the carrier is not liable if and to the extent that the damage resulted from the inherent defect, quality or vice of the baggage. In the case of unchecked baggage, including personal items, the carrier is liable if the damage resulted from its fault or that of its servants or agents. … 4. Unless otherwise specified, in this Convention the term “baggage” means both checked baggage and unchecked baggage.’
7 Article 22 of the Montreal Convention, entitled ‘Limits of liability in relation to delay, baggage and cargo’, provides, in paragraph 2: ‘In the carriage of baggage, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay is limited to 1000 Special Drawing Rights [(‘SDRs’)] for each passenger unless the passenger has made, at the time when the checked baggage was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless it proves that the sum is greater than the passenger’s actual interest in delivery at destination.’
8 In accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 24 of the Montreal Convention, the limit of liability laid down in Article 22(2) thereof was increased to 1131 Special Drawing Rights per passenger for damage to baggage as from 30 December 2009. That amount was increased to 1288 SDRs with effect from 28 December 2019.
9 Following the signing of the Montreal Convention, Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of the Council of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air (OJ 1997 L 285, p. 1) was amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 May 2002 (OJ 2002 L 140, p. 2) (‘Regulation No 2027/97’).
10 Recital 12 of Regulation No 889/2002 states: ‘Uniform liability limits for loss of, damage to, or destruction of, baggage and for damage occasioned by delay, which apply to all travel on [EU] carriers, will ensure simple and clear rules for both passengers and airlines and enable passengers to recognise when additional insurance is necessary.’
11 Article 2(1) of Regulation No 2027/97 provides: ‘For the purpose of this Regulation: … (d) “baggage”, unless otherwise specified, shall mean both checked and unchecked baggage with the meaning of Article 17(4) of the Montreal Convention; …’
12 Under Article 3(1) of that regulation: ‘The liability of a Community air carrier in respect of passengers and their baggage shall be governed by all provisions of the Montreal Convention relevant to such liability.’
13 Paragraph 1 of Article 333bis of the Código Civil (Civil Code) defines animals as sentient living beings. That provision states that the rules governing assets and things apply to animals only in so far as this is compatible with the nature of the animals or with the rules laid down to protect them.
14 Felicísima and her mother bought tickets for a flight on 22 October 2019 from Buenos Aires (Argentina) to Barcelona (Spain) operated by Iberia.
15 The passengers travelled with their pet, a dog. Due to its size and weight, the dog was to travel in the hold, in a pet carrier or a special, standardised container. Felicísima checked in the pet carrier containing the dog so that it could be taken to the hold of the aircraft, but she did not make, at the time when the checked baggage was handed over, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination, within the meaning of Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention.
16 The dog left the pet carrier, ran around in the vicinity of the aircraft and could not be recovered.
17 Felicísima brought an action before the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 4 de Madrid (Commercial Court No 4, Madrid, Spain), which is the referring court, claiming compensation for her non-material damage which she evaluates at EUR 5000. Iberia accepts its responsibility and Felicísima’s entitlement to compensation, but within the limit laid down in Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention.
18 The referring court is uncertain whether the concept of ‘baggage’, within the meaning of Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention, excludes pets travelling with passengers, and whether the limit for compensation laid down in Article 22(2) of that convention applies to pets.
19 According to the referring court, since animals are sentient beings, within the meaning of Article 13 TFEU, or sentient living beings, under Spanish law, to which their owners have an emotional connection, the loss of a pet causes psychological distress that is not comparable, generally, to that caused by the loss of a mere collection of things corresponding to the concept of ‘baggage’. In those circumstances, the limit for compensation provided for in Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention does not seem appropriate.
20 Furthermore, according to the referring court, the psychological distress caused by the loss of a pet cannot be prevented by means of a ‘special declaration of interest’, within the meaning of Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention, as such a declaration makes reference to the material value of the item.
21 In those circumstances, the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 4 de Madrid (Commercial Court No 4, Madrid) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘Must Article 17(2) of the [Montreal Convention], read in conjunction with Article 22(2) of that convention, be interpreted as meaning that the term “baggage”, either checked or unchecked, does not apply to pets?’
22 By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention, read in conjunction with Article 22(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that pets are excluded from the concept of ‘baggage’ within the meaning of those provisions.
23 It must first be recalled that, under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2027/97, the liability of EU air carriers in respect of passengers and their baggage is to be governed by all provisions of the Montreal Convention relevant to such liability (judgment of 20 October 2022, Laudamotion, C‑111/21, EU:C:2022:808, paragraph 18).
24 Under Article 17(2) of that convention the carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of destruction or loss of, or of damage to, checked baggage upon condition only that the event which caused the destruction, loss or damage took place on board the aircraft or during any period within which the checked baggage was in the charge of the carrier. In the case of unchecked baggage, including personal items, the carrier is liable if the damage resulted from its fault or that of its servants or agents.
25 The concept of ‘baggage’ referred to in that provision is not defined either in the Montreal Convention or in Regulation No 2027/97, Article 2(1)(d) of which refers to that convention by stating that that concept corresponds, unless otherwise specified, to both checked and unchecked baggage with the meaning of Article 17(4) of that convention.
26 That concept must be given, having regard to the aim of the Montreal Convention, which is to unify the rules for international carriage by air, a uniform and autonomous interpretation, for the European Union and its Member States. Thus, account must be taken not of the various meanings that may be given to the same concept in the domestic law of the Member States, but of the rules of interpretation of general international law, which are binding on the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 October 2022, Laudamotion, C‑111/21, EU:C:2022:808, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).
27 In that respect, Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969 (United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1155, p. 331), which reflects customary international law and whose provisions are part of the EU legal order, states that a treaty must 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. Moreover, Article 32 of that convention provides that recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty at issue and the circumstances of its conclusion (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 October 2022, Laudamotion, C‑111/21, EU:C:2022:808, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).
28 The ordinary meaning of the term ‘baggage’ refers, generally, to any item a person might bring when travelling. While that item may take the form of a container, such as a bag, a suitcase or a box, in which personal belongings may be stowed, that is not necessarily the case. A pushchair can also be baggage.
29 Even though the ordinary meaning of the term ‘baggage’ refers to objects, that alone does not lead to the conclusion that pets fall outside that concept.
30 Indeed, as regards the context of the term ‘baggage’ in Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention, it must be emphasised that that term appears also in Article 1 of that convention, which determines the scope of application of the Convention. However, that provision lists, exhaustively, three types of international carriage performed by aircraft for reward, namely international carriage of persons, of baggage and of cargo.
31 In that regard, it follows from the information provided by the referring court that it seeks to ascertain whether, in the course of air travel, the loss of a pet is covered by the rules on liability for ‘baggage’ provided for in Article 17(2) and Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention or, rather, by the rules applicable to ‘passengers’ set out in Article 17(1) and Article 21 of that convention.
32 At the outset, it is necessary to discard an interpretation that includes pets within the concept of ‘passengers’, as Article 1 of the Montreal Convention refers specifically to persons and baggage. It thus follows from the clear wording of that provision that the concept of ‘persons’ corresponds to that of ‘passengers’, with the result that a pet cannot be considered to be a ‘passenger’.
33 That interpretation is supported by the travaux préparatoires that led to the adoption of the Montreal Convention, from which it is not apparent that the States Parties intended to regard a pet as a passenger or to make pets subject to the same liability rules as passengers (see, to that effect, minutes of the meetings of the Plenary Commission of 10 to 28 May 1999, International Conference on Air Law, Montreal, 10 to 28 May 1999, Doc 9775-DC/2, Vol. I, minutes, Vol. II, documents, and Vol. III, travaux préparatoires).
34 Therefore, it must be held that, for the purposes of air travel, a pet falls within the concept of ‘baggage’ and compensation for the damage resulting from the loss of a pet during air travel is subject to the liability rules for baggage, laid down in Article 17(2) and Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention.
35 That interpretation is supported by the objectives which governed the adoption of the Montreal Convention.
36 According to the third paragraph of the preamble to that convention, the States Parties, recognising ‘the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers in international carriage by air and [of] the need for equitable compensation based on the principle of restitution’, decided to lay down a system of strict liability for air carriers. A system of that kind implies, however, as is apparent from the fifth paragraph of the preamble to that convention, that an ‘equitable balance of interests’ be maintained, in particular the interests of air carriers and of passengers (judgment of 6 July 2023, Austrian Airlines (First aid on board an aircraft), C‑510/21, EU:C:2023:550, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited).
37 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 or loss of, damage to or delay of baggage - with the resulting limitation of compensation to be applied ‘per passenger’ (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 November 2012, Espada Sánchez and Others, C‑410/11, EU:C:2012:747, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).
38 A limitation of the compensation so designed enables passengers to be compensated easily and swiftly, yet without imposing a very heavy compensation burden on air carriers, which would be difficult to determine and to calculate, and would be liable to undermine, and even paralyse, the economic activity of those carriers (see, to that effect, judgments of 6 May 2010, Walz, C‑63/09, EU:C:2010:251, paragraph 36, and of 19 December 2019, Niki Luftfahrt, C‑532/18, EU:C:2019:1127, paragraph 40).
39 In the present case, as is apparent from the information provided by the referring court, the applicant in the main proceedings checked in the pet carrier containing her pet, without making a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination at the time when the checked baggage was handed over, within the meaning of Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention.
40 In that regard, the Court has interpreted Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention as meaning that, in the carriage of baggage, the liability of an air carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay ‘is limited’, from 30 December 2009 until 28 December 2019, to the sum of 1131 SDRs per passenger, but also that the limit laid down in that provision constitutes a maximum limit for compensation which cannot accrue automatically and in full to any passenger, even in the event of loss of his or her baggage (judgment of 9 July 2020, Vueling Airlines, C‑86/19, EU:C:2020:538, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).
41 The Court has also noted that the possibility for the passenger to make a special declaration of interest at the time when the checked baggage is handed over to the carrier, under Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention, confirms that the limit of an air carrier’s liability for the loss of baggage is, in the absence of any special declaration of interest in delivery at destination, an absolute limit which includes both non-material and material damage (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 July 2020, Vueling Airlines, C‑86/19, EU:C:2020:538, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).
42 Therefore, where a passenger considers that the limit of an air carrier’s liability for the damage resulting from the loss of baggage is insufficient, he or she has the possibility, in accordance with Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention, to increase that limit by making such a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and by paying a supplementary sum if the case so requires, subject to the approval of the air carrier.
43 Lastly, the interpretation set out in paragraph 34 of the present judgement cannot be called into question by the wording of Article 13 TFEU relied on by the referring court, according to which, in formulating and implementing the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States must, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.
44 In that regard, it is clear both from the case-law of the Court and from Article 13 TFEU that the protection of animal welfare is an objective of general interest recognised by the European Union (judgment of 29 February 2024, cdVet Naturprodukte, C‑13/23, EU:C:2024:175, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited).
45 Nevertheless, Article 13 TFEU does not prevent animals from being transported as ‘baggage’, within the meaning of Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention, and from being regarded as such within the framework of the system of liability established by that convention, upon the condition that full regard is paid to animal welfare requirements while they are being transported.
46 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is that Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention, read in conjunction with Article 22(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that pets are not excluded from the concept of ‘baggage’ within the meaning of those provisions.
47 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.