EU Court Rules Pets Can Be Treated as Baggage in Flight Compensation Case

A dog lost on a flight from Buenos Aires to Barcelona has sparked a major legal ruling from Europe’s top court, one that says pets travelling by air can legally be classed as baggage. 

The decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) means airlines aren’t obliged to pay higher compensation when a pet is lost, unless the owner has made a special declaration about its value before the flight. 

The case began when a young woman named Felicísima and her mother checked in for their Iberia flight to Spain with their dog, Mona, who was travelling in a pet crate in the aircraft hold. But before boarding, Mona somehow escaped while being transported to the plane and was never seen again. 

Despite a widespread search and social media campaign led by Felicísima, the dog was never recovered. Heartbroken, she filed a claim for €5,000 (£4,340) in damages, arguing that Mona was part of her family, not an object. 

Iberia accepted responsibility for losing the dog but argued that the amount demanded exceeded the standard liability limit for lost luggage under international aviation law. Because no special declaration of value had been made for the crate or its contents, the airline said compensation should be capped as if it were a missing suitcase. 

After six years of legal proceedings in Spain, the case was referred to the ECJ in Luxembourg to decide one key question, whether a pet could legally be considered “baggage” under the Montréal Convention, which governs airline liability for lost cargo and passenger belongings. The judges ruled that it could. 

“The Montréal Convention clearly refers to passengers and baggage,” the court said. “A pet cannot be considered a passenger. It must therefore be regarded as baggage for the purposes of airline liability.” 

In practical terms, the decision means passengers can only claim higher compensation for a lost pet if they make a special declaration of value before flying, something almost no airline currently allows. 

Felicísima’s lawyer, Carlos Villa Corta, criticised the verdict, calling it “a missed opportunity to advance the recognition of animal rights.” 

“No airline in the world will accept a special declaration for a pet in the hold,” he said. “This ruling effectively equates a living creature to a suitcase, which is deeply disappointing for those who care about animal welfare.” 

Because no declaration was made in this case, Felicísima’s claim was limited to €1,578.82, the standard cap for lost baggage. 

The court acknowledged that the protection of animal welfare is an important EU principle but said that didn’t change how pets are treated legally during air transport. 

“Animals may be loved and cared for as family members,” the ruling said, “but for the purpose of flight liability, they fall under the category of baggage.” 

For Felicísima, who continues to search for Mona years later, the judgment is a painful reminder of how little recognition pets receive under aviation law. 

“Who has Mona?” she wrote in a post online. “Whoever does, they know she’s ours. They know the pain we’ve felt.”