That procedural detail is crucial: without a special declaration, the general baggage liability limits apply; with one, the cap can be raised, without prejudice to the carrier proving that the declared sum exceeds the item’s actual value at destination.
The CJEU notes that the Montreal Convention does not expressly define “baggage,” but it does distinguish between “persons” (passengers) and goods carried. Since pets are not part of the legal category of passengers, a systematic interpretation leads to the conclusion that, in the context of air transport, their carriage falls within the notion of baggage for liability purposes. The court recalls that, although the ordinary meaning of “baggage” is associated with objects, that literal understanding alone is not enough to exclude pets from the Convention’s protection when they travel under the carrier’s custody. Thus, if loss, damage or destruction occurs inside the aircraft or while the item—including the pet in its carrier—is under the airline’s charge, the carrier’s liability arises under the limits and conditions set by international rules. For unchecked baggage, liability applies if the damage is attributable to the fault of the carrier or its employees.
The judgment also settles a sensitive debate: protecting animal welfare—an objective of general interest recognized by the Union—is not incompatible with treating pets as baggage for civil liability purposes. The key, the court stresses, is that throughout the process—from acceptance at the counter to delivery at destination—welfare requirements are respected: suitable cages or carriers, safe handling, appropriate temperature and pressure conditions, and reasonable waiting and transfer times. That standard does not turn animals into “passengers” nor does it alter the compensation regime, but it does impose operational obligations on airlines and airport operators to reduce risks and ensure dignified treatment.
For travelers, the ruling has several practical consequences. First, check the airline’s specific pet-transport conditions in advance and, if the pet’s emotional or economic value warrants it, consider making a special declaration of interest when checking in—accepting the corresponding surcharge—to raise liability limits. Second, strictly follow the trip-preparation guidelines—identification, health documentation, approved carrier, prior habituation—since non-compliance can affect not only the animal’s welfare but also potential coverage in the event of an incident. Third, in cases of loss or damage, submit a prompt written claim, attaching evidence (boarding pass, baggage tag, irregularity report, communications with the airline and, where applicable, veterinary certificates).
With this decision, the CJEU provides legal certainty in an area of growing demand and social sensitivity. By classifying pets as baggage for compensation purposes without lowering welfare standards, it aligns animal protection with the predictability required by passengers and airlines. For operators, the message is clear: transporting pets is not an ancillary service without legal consequences; it is fully covered by the air-transport liability regime, with heightened duties of care and an obligation to provide clear, transparent information on options and compensation limits from booking through final delivery.
