The dog and any other animal taken on board an aircraft are equated with luggage, Therefore, in the case of loss, the company is only liable for the compensation provided for in such cases. This was established by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which was called upon to rule on the case of a dog lost on an Iberia flight in 2019.
The flight departed from’Ezeiza International Airport (EZE), in Buenos Aires, bound for Barcelona. The woman involved in the case was forced to board her dog in the hold, because it exceeded the dimensions allowed for transport in the cabin. During the handling operations, however, according to reconstructions, the animal escaped from the custody of the handlers and started to run around the aircraft, without an attempt being made to retrieve it. It was never found again.
Iberia acknowledged its responsibility, but was willing to compensate the woman only for the amount stipulated for the loss of luggage, i.e. EUR 1627.63 as indicated by the Corriere della Sera. No moral damage then. The woman appealed, but today came the negative opinion of the CJEU.
The Iberia case 2019, what the Montreal Convention says
There Montreal Convention is an agreement to which all civil aviation bodies adhere to the ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organisation. It regulates the transport of passengers, luggage and goods, setting liability constraints for loss and damage, but does not expressly mention animals.
EU regulation on the movement of pets
For intra-EU travel and from third countries to the EU, harmonised health rules apply:
- Every dog, cat or ferret must be identified (micro-chipped), vaccinated against rabies and have a European passport or health certificate (when required).
- Some countries require anti-tenia treatments (e.g. Echinococcus) under certain conditions.
- It is possible to travel with up to five animals not intended for commercial trade; above that number or in the case of commercial purposes, animal trade rules apply.
- If the animal is not accompanied by the owner, a written authorisation is required; in addition, the animal must arrive within five days of the owner's journey.
However, these rules regulate health and handling aspects, not the contractual treatment of the animal in relation to the air carrier.
The ruling of the Court of Justice
There Court of Justice of the European Union was therefore called upon to give an opinion on the matter, the course of the proceedings and the outcome can be found by searching for Case C-218/24. In short, the animal does not qualify as a “passenger” in international air transport, but may be considered as “baggage”. This means that the carrier's liability regime for loss, damage or delay of the animal follows the same rules, including the compensation limits provided for baggage.
This does not mean that the right to protect the animal does not exist, but that in the absence of a specific rule on animals as a distinct category, carriers may apply internal regulations as long as they comply with conventional constraints (e.g. monetary limits) and national or EU regulations. In this specific case, the woman's demand of 5,000 euros is not legitimate.
According to Iberia's lawyers, the woman could have demanded more had she expressed the special declaration of interest at the time of check-in. This is an upgrade fee that indicates that the value of the transported item is higher than the standard compensation amount. Again, a practice provided for simple items.
Iberia won the case, but what about the human side?
The airline may have been right, according to current regulations. Yet its decision to oppose an all in all derisory compensation does not indicate a particularly far-sighted view of reputation. Indeed, the issue was far from free of ethical doubts. Animals are considered sentient beings by Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), one of the fundamental documents of the Union. The article does not explicitly refer to transport, but in theory binds Member States to take the status of pet animals into account when implementing EU policies.
The CJEU, to which the same Spanish judge had addressed himself, took a different view. Provided that the animal's welfare is respected during transport, at present no rule binds the airline to consider more compensation for its loss. While the law may be lacking in empathy, the same should not be said of Iberia. Clearly the carrier wanted to avoid a challenging precedent, but it could have taken a different route.
What is certain is that, given the recent opening up of air transport to more pet-friendly trips, There is an urgent need for a revision of the regulations and also for specialised training for employees, so that they are better prepared to handle their four-legged friends, even in the possible absence of their owners.
