Independent Legal Analysis in Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España (Case C-218/24)

Written By Marine Lercier

Should the loss of a companion animal transported by air be treated merely as the loss of ‘baggage’ under the 1999 Montreal Convention?

This legal analysis responds to a pending preliminary reference before the Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-218/24 – Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España), arising from the loss of a companion dog named Mona during an international flight. Iberia classified her disappearance as ‘baggage loss’ under the Montreal Convention, limiting compensation to the fixed amount applicable to lost luggage.

ICARE — the International Centre for Animal Rights and Ethics — has prepared this independent legal analysis to assist the Court and the broader legal community in interpreting the Convention within the context of modern EU law and society. The brief argues that the Convention’s liability framework must evolve to reflect the reality that companion animals are sentient family members, not replaceable property, and that current law fails to address the moral harm caused by their loss.

Prepared with contributions from the Nonhuman Rights Project, this analysis draws on international jurisprudence, EU primary law, comparative legal developments, and evolving social understandings of the human–animal bond.


Executive Summary 
This case asks whether Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention, when applied within the EU legal order, permits the loss of a companion animal during international air carriage to be treated as the loss of mere ‘baggage,’ subject only to limited economic compensation. 

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is invited to clarify whether such an interpretation is consistent with: 

  • the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular its Article 13, which recognises animals as sentient beings and mandates that the Union and the Member States pay full regard to animal welfare in transport and related policies; 

  • the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR), in particular its Articles 7, 17, and 38, guaranteeing respect for family life, the right to property, and consumer protection; and 

  • the general principles of EU law, including legal certainty, proportionality, and effective protection of rights. 

    We submit that the Montreal Convention must be interpreted in light of the current legal, social, and scientific realities: 

1. Considering the evolving societal and legal status of companion animals across the EU and globally, where they are increasingly recognised as family members, rather than replaceable property. This is reflected in EU and national legislation, as well as in jurisprudence awarding moral damages for the loss of companion animals; 

2. Considering that, as part of EU law, the Montreal Convention must be read consistently with the Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and international interpretive norms under Articles 31-32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and that the principle of intertemporality requires applying the treaty in light of present-day legal and social contexts, rather than those prevailing in 1999; 

3. Considering that the Convention’s silence on moral damages creates a normative gap that undermines consumer protection and leaves unredressed the emotional harm suffered by human guardians following the loss of a companion animal; 

4. Considering that European courts now recognise the irreplaceable nature of companion animals and the compensability of moral harm, while parallel developments in Latin America, the United States, and China confirm a global shift towards acknowledging the familial status of companion animals and the corresponding legal obligations of those responsible for their protection. 

Accordingly, the Court should interpret Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention as excluding the assimilation of living, sentient companion animals to inanimate ‘baggage’. Such an interpretation ensures coherence with EU constitutional values, international law, and the legitimate expectations and interests of European citizens, passengers, and consumers. 

The Court’s interpretation will determine whether EU passengers who suffer the loss of a sentient, non-human family member during air transport are left without meaningful redress for the moral harm foreseeably caused. 


Download the analysis
Published: 10 October 2025
Author: International Centre for Animal Rights and Ethics (ICARE)
With contribution from the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP).

For press and collaboration: For media inquiries, interviews, or academic citation, please contact: info@icare-animals.org

Citation: International Centre for Animal Rights and Ethics (ICARE), Independent Legal Analysis in Case C-218/24: Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España (2025) <https://icare-animals.org/publications/independent-legal-analysis-c-218-24> accessed (date).

Marine Lercier