Court of Justice of the European Union finds pets are ‘baggage’ rather than ‘passengers’ for the purpose of the Montreal Convention

In October 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) considered whether liability for the death of or damage to a pet was liability which fell within Article 17(1) or (2) of the Montreal Convention (‘the Convention’). 

The proceedings were commenced by a passenger who intended on taking her dog on an international flight, operated by Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España (‘Iberia’). The dog was required to be carried in the hold and accordingly, the passenger checked in the pet carrier containing the dog with the airline. During the course of being loaded onto the aircraft, the dog escaped the pet carrier, ran around the vicinity of the aircraft and could not be recovered. The passenger made a claim for damage suffered following the loss of her dog.

Under Article 17(1) of the Convention, a carrier is liable for damage sustained in the case of bodily injury or death of a passenger where the accident causing the damage took place on board the aircraft or in the course of embarking or disembarking the aircraft. At the time of the incident, Article 21 (as adjusted) limited liability to a maximum of 128,821 Special Drawing Rights (approximately AUD280,200) where the carrier could prove that such damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier or its servants or agents.

Under Article 17(2) of the Convention, a carrier is liable for damage sustained (including loss) to checked baggage that took place during the period in which the carrier was in charge of the checked baggage. At the time of the incident, Article 22(2) (as adjusted) provided a limit of 1,288 Special Drawing Rights (approximately AUD2,800) in relation to damage to or destruction of checked baggage unless the passenger had made a special declaration at the time of checking in the baggage.

In determining whether a pet was considered ‘baggage’ or a ‘passenger’ under the Convention, the CJEU considered that the ordinary meaning of the term baggage generally refers to any item a person might bring along when travelling and held that pets fall within this definition.  Following the decision, liability for the death of a pet which was to be carried in the aircraft hold and which occurs during carriage by air is limited to 1,288 SDRs (approximately AUD2,800) and passengers cannot bring a separate claim for psychological harm suffered by reason of the death of their pet.

This decision has implications for liability for airlines in Australia who are carrying pets in the aircraft hold, both via international carriage subject to the Montreal Convention, and via domestic carriage under the Civil Aviation (Carrier’s Liability) Act 1959 (‘CACLA’), which is to be interpreted harmoniously with the Convention[1]  As a result of the decision, airlines which carry pets as checked baggage could consider including statements in their conditions of carriage to the effect that liability for damage to pets is limited to the baggage limits and recommending pet owners take out appropriate insurances to cover any non-recoverable damage.

The CJEU did not consider whether pets or service animals carried in the aircraft cabin would also be considered ‘pets’ for the purpose of liability under the Convention or the CACLA.

Different liability issues will arise where pets or service animals carried in the cabin cause injury to other passengers on board and in those cases, whether the airline is liable will depend on whether the conditions of Article 17(1) of the Convention or s28 of the CACLA have been met.

[1] Parkes Shire Council v South West Helicopters Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 14 [36], [69]

Contacts 

Keira Nelson
+ 61 2 9230 9440
keira.nelson@nortonwhite.com