On 16 October 2025, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Case C‑218/24, Felícissima v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA Operadora Unipersona and IATA España SLUl on the interpretation of Article 17(2) and Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention. The request has been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Felicísima, a passenger on an international flight, and, on the other, Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA Operadora Unipersonal (“Iberia”) and IATA España SLU (“IATA”) concerning compensation for non-material damage suffered by Felicísima following the loss of her pet on a flight operated by that carrier.

Felicísima and her mother bought tickets for a flight from Buenos Aires to Barcelona operated by Iberia. The passengers travelled with their pet, a dog, which was to travel in the hold, in a pet carrier or a special, standardised container, due to its size and weight. Felicísima checked in the pet carrier containing the dog so that it could be taken to the hold of the aircraft, but she did not make, at the time when the checked baggage was handed over, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination according to the Montreal Convention.

The dog, however, left the pet carrier, ran around in the vicinity of the aircraft and could not be recovered. Felicísima, therefore, claimed compensation for her non-material damage before the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n^o 4 de Madrid (Commercial Court No 4, Madrid; the “referring court”) which, in light of the need to interpret the relevant European legislation, decided to stay the proceedings and to ask to the Court of Justice whether Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention, read in conjunction with Article 22(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that pets are excluded from the concept of “baggage” within the meaning of those provisions.

The ordinary meaning of the term “baggage” refers, generally, to any item a person might bring when travelling, and despite such item may take the form of a container, that is not necessarily the case. Even though the ordinary meaning of the term “baggage” refers to objects, that alone does not lead to the conclusion that pets fall outside that concept. According to the Court, therefore, for the purposes of air travel, a pet falls within the concept of “baggage”, and compensation for the damage resulting from its loss during air travel is subject to the liability rules laid down in Article 17(2) and Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention.