The European Union鈥檚 top court ruled Thursday that a dog travelling in an aeroplane鈥檚 cargo hold counts as baggage, meaning airlines are not required to pay higher compensation if the animal is lost.
The ruling stems from a dispute between Spanish airline Iberia and a passenger whose dog went missing on a flight from Buenos Aires to Barcelona in October 2019.
The dog, which had to travel in the aircraft鈥檚 hold due to its size and weight, escaped while being taken to the plane and was never found.
The passenger sought 鈧�5,000 ($5,400) in damages. Iberia accepted responsibility but argued that compensation should be limited to the lower amount set for checked baggage under the Montreal Convention, which covers airline liability.
The Spanish court handling the claim referred the question to the European Union Court of Justice, which sided with the airline.
鈥楨ven though the ordinary meaning of the word 鈥榖aggage鈥� refers to objects, this alone does not lead to the conclusion that pets fall outside that concept,鈥� the Luxembourg-based court ruled.
An animal can be considered 鈥榖aggage鈥� for liability purposes 鈥榰pon the condition that full regard is paid to animal welfare requirements while they are transported,鈥� the court added.
The passenger had not made a 鈥榮pecial declaration of interest鈥� at check-in, an option allowing higher compensation for an additional fee with carrier approval.
The judgment is advisory and leaves the final ruling to the Spanish court handling the compensation claim.
The EU鈥檚 top court also ruled Thursday that a lightning strike on an aircraft may qualify as an 鈥榚xtraordinary circumstance鈥� that may exempt airlines from compensation for long delays or cancellations.
An Austrian court referred the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union, in which a passenger sought to claim compensation from Austrian Airlines.
The passenger arrived with a delay of more than seven hours from Romania to Austria after the aircraft the traveller was supposed to take was hit by lightning and had to be replaced.
Lightning 鈥榗onstitutes an extraordinary circumstance which may relieve the airline of the obligation to pay compensation... where it leads to mandatory safety inspections,鈥� the court said in a statement on the ruling.
It said it was up to the Austrian court to assess if the airline took 鈥榓ll reasonable measures鈥� to avoid the extraordinary circumstances.
In 2017, the court classified a collision with a bird as 鈥榚xtraordinary circumstance鈥�.
