October 17, 2025, 3:31 pm | Read time: 4 minutes
When pets go missing during air travel, owners hope for fair compensation–but a recent ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is likely to disappoint many. In this particular case, a dog named Mona disappeared during a flight from Buenos Aires to Barcelona. The owner sued for damages amounting to 5,000 euros. However, the ECJ has now ruled: Animals are considered luggage in air travel–with drastic consequences for claims in case of loss.
Dog Escaped During Loading–Airline Acknowledges Loss, but Not the Amount
The incident occurred back in 2019. The plaintiff, referred to as Felicísima in court documents, was traveling with her mother and her dog Mona from Argentina to Spain. The animal was properly checked in a special transport box. However, during loading onto the plane, the dog escaped. Despite an intensive search, she was not found. In Spain, the case already had legal repercussions–the competent court referred the question of liability obligations under the international Montreal Convention to the ECJ.
The airline Iberia admitted responsibility for the loss of the animal but rejected the amount of compensation demanded. The reason: There was no specific value declaration for the checked luggage–the transport box–as required by the Montreal Convention for higher compensation claims.
ECJ: Animals Are Not “Passengers,” but Part of the Luggage
The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled clearly: “It must therefore be assumed that a pet falls under the term ‘luggage’ for the purposes of air transport, and compensation for damages resulting from its loss during such transport is subject to the liability regime for luggage.”
It further stated: “The Montreal Convention explicitly refers to persons and luggage. From the clear wording of this provision, it follows that the term ‘persons’ is limited to ‘passengers,’ so an animal cannot be considered a ‘passenger.'”
The court also noted that no specific value declaration for the transport box had been made. Thus, the case is subject to the usual liability limits for lost luggage. According to Spanish media, the plaintiff was therefore awarded only 1,578.82 euros, far below the 5,000 euros demanded for so-called non-material damage. Since the incident, Mona has not been found.
Why the Spanish Animal Protection Law Could Not Protect Mona
The animal protection law in Spain is actually one of the most progressive in the European Union and recognizes animals as sentient beings. To understand why animal rights played no role in the ECJ ruling AZ C‑218/24, one must know the legal levels of the decision.
At the top is international law–here the Montreal Convention of 1999, which in Article 17, Paragraph 2, and Article 22, Paragraph 2, precisely regulates when and to what extent airlines are liable for the loss of luggage. This agreement applies worldwide and stipulates that animals transported in the cargo hold are legally considered “luggage” on an international flight.
The European Union has incorporated the convention into its own law with Regulation (EC) No. 2027/97, amended by No. 889/2002. Thus, the rules set out there are binding for all member states–including Spain.
National law, in this case, Article 333 bis, Paragraph 1 of the Spanish Civil Code (Código Civil), which defines animals as “sentient beings,” is therefore one level lower. It must yield if it contradicts international regulations.
Therefore, the plaintiff could not rely on Spanish animal protection law. For the court, only the Montreal Convention was decisive–and according to its logic, Mona was legally considered luggage during transport, not a sentient being.
Flying With Dogs or Cats: What Owners Need to Know
Animals Are “Things”? That’s Not True!
Emotional Search for Mona–and Criticism of the Legal Situation
After the incident, Felicísima launched an extensive search campaign on social media. The emotional dimension of the case was also evident in an earlier court proceeding: “The dog escaped from the transport box, ran around near the plane, and could not be recaptured,” the court documents state.
In a previous court proceeding, her lawyer Carlos Villa Corta sharply criticized the ECJ ruling: “I believe a great opportunity was missed to raise awareness of the rights of animals and the people who care for them.”
He also questioned the practicality of the ruling: “No airline in the world will accept a specific value declaration for an animal in the cargo hold.” 1
Ruling with Signal Effect for Animal Transport
With this ruling, the ECJ has set a precedent for animal transport. In its reasoning, the court emphasized that animal protection is a “matter of general interest” in the European Union. Nevertheless, this does not contradict the fact that animals may be considered “luggage” in air transport. The decision is likely to have a signaling effect on future animal transport cases. 1