For the European Court of Justice, your canine is not any dearer than misplaced baggage | EUROtoday
Get real time updates directly on you device, subscribe now.
Lman’s finest good friend… But he is not value all of the gold on this planet. This is, in a graphic method, what the Court of Justice of the European Union estimated, in a judgment communicated this Thursday, October 16. The case dates again to October 2019. Argentine Grisel Ortiz, a passenger on a Buenos Aires-Barcelona flight, a flight operated by the corporate Iberia, was touring along with her canine.
Due to its measurement and weight, the animal should journey within the maintain. “During check-in, the passenger did not make a special declaration of interest in delivery concerning the baggage,” specifies the Court. This declaration is an possibility supplied when an object, usually costly, is checked on board.
The canine escaped throughout transport and couldn’t be recovered. The passenger then requests compensation for ethical harm because of the lack of the animal, for an quantity of 5,000 euros. “Iberia recognizes its liability and the right to compensation, but within the limit provided for checked baggage. »
“A pet cannot be assimilated to a “passenger””
“The Spanish court which examines the request for compensation has referred the matter to the Court of Justice so that it can determine whether the notion of “baggage”, throughout the which means of the Montreal Convention, excludes pets which journey with passengers,” the judgment additional explains. The European Court of Justice responded that pets usually are not excluded from the idea of “baggage”.
According to her, pets can’t be excluded from the notion of objects. “The notion of “persons” covers that of “passengers”, such {that a} pet can’t be assimilated to a “passenger”. »
In this gentle, compensation after the lack of the animal is subsequently topic to the legal responsibility regime supplied for bags. “The Court recalls that, in the absence of any special declaration of interest in delivery, the limit of liability of the air carrier for loss of baggage covers both moral damage and material damage. » Indeed, the special declaration of interest can make it possible to set a larger amount.
An advisory opinion
“The fact that the protection of the welfare of animals constitutes an objective of general interest recognized by the Union does not prevent them from being transported as “baggage” and being thought of as such for the needs of legal responsibility derived from their loss, supplied that their welfare necessities are absolutely taken under consideration throughout their transport,” concludes the judgment. This choice subsequently vindicates the airline.
To Discover
Kangaroo of the day
Answer
Carlos Villacorta, Grisel Ortiz’s lawyer, advised AFP that he was “relatively disappointed” with the opinion of the European court docket, whereas expressing confidence in the truth that the Spanish judges, who will in the end determine the case, “will be more sensitive to the new realities of our society”. In the case of an individual whose canine is their solely life companion, an analogous disappearance may have penalties “not only moral, but also psychological and even psychiatric which, according to this opinion, can never be compensated,” he says.
Passenger rights are protected by the 1999 Montreal Convention, which stipulates that “the liability of the carrier in the event of destruction, loss, damage or delay is limited to the sum of 1,000 special drawing rights per passage”, or round 1,200 euros. The opinion of the Court of Justice has solely an advisory worth and doesn’t resolve the dispute, which falls throughout the jurisdiction of the Spanish court docket.
https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/pour-la-cour-de-justice-europeenne-votre-chien-ne-vaut-pas-plus-cher-qu-un-bagage-perdu-16-10-2025-2601145_23.php