THE EUROPEAN COURT of justice has ruled that pets on flights can be classified as baggage and that lost baggage rules apply if they go missing.

The ECJ was asked to intervene in the case of a pet dog that went missing on a flight from Buenos Aires to Barcelona on 22 October, 2019.

A passenger was travelling with her mother and pet dog on a flight operated by the Spanish airline Iberia.

While small dogs are allowed in the cabin, the size and weight of the dog in question meant that it was due to travel in the hold in a pet carrier.

However, the dog managed to escape while being carried to the plane and was not recovered.

The passenger claimed €5,000 in compensation for “non-material” damage suffered following the loss of her dog.

Examples of non-material damages include emotional and psychological harm.

However, the passenger did not make a special declaration in relation to the baggage during check-in and as a result could not claim non-material damages.

Iberia accepted its liability and the entitlement to compensation, but within the limit laid down for lost baggage, which is around €1,600.

The Spanish court examining the claim for compensation referred a question to the ECJ to determine whether the concept of “baggage” within the meaning of the Montreal Convention excludes pets travelling with passengers.

The Montreal Convention is an international treaty that governs airline’s liability for passengers, baggage, and cargo.

The ECJ found that pets are not excluded from the concept of baggage.

It ruled that while the ordinary meaning of the word baggage refers to objects, this does not mean that pets fall outside that concept.

The ECJ ruled that the concept of ‘persons’ corresponds to that of ‘passengers’ and this means that a pet cannot be considered to be a ‘passenger’.

As a result, the ECJ said that for the purposes of air travel, a pet “falls within the concept of ‘baggage’ and the compensation for the damage resulting from the loss of a pet is subject to the liability rules for baggage”.

The Court ruled that in the absence of any special declaration of interest, the limit on an air carrier’s liability is for the loss of baggage.

However, a prior special declaration of interest would allow passengers to increase this limit – something which was not made before this 2019 flight.

The Court noted that the protection of animal welfare 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.