The European Union’s top court has ruled that a dog traveling in an airplane’s cargo hold is to be considered “baggage.” This decision limits the amount of compensation airlines are required to pay if the animal is lost or killed during a flight.
The Case
The ruling stems from a dispute involving a Spanish airline, Iberia, and a passenger whose dog went missing on a flight from Buenos Aires to Barcelona in October 2019. The dog, a large breed, was required to travel in the cargo hold. While being transferred to the aircraft, it escaped and was never found. The passenger sued for €5,000 in damages for the emotional distress and loss.
Iberia accepted liability for the loss but argued that compensation should be limited to the amount set for checked baggage under the Montreal Convention, an international treaty that governs airline liability. The limit under this convention is approximately €1,870.
A Spanish court referred the question to the European Union Court of Justice (ECJ) to determine if a pet should be treated as baggage.
The Court’s Decision
On Thursday, October 16, 2025, the Luxembourg-based court ruled in favor of the airline. The court’s reasoning was that, under aviation law, there are only two categories: passengers and baggage. Since a pet is not a passenger, it falls under the definition of baggage.
The court’s judgment also noted that the ruling does not diminish the airline’s responsibility for the welfare of the animals during transport. It stated that an animal can be considered baggage as long as “full regard is paid to animal welfare requirements while they are transported.”
The ruling also highlighted that the passenger had not made a “special declaration of interest” at check-in, an option that allows a passenger to pay an additional fee to declare a higher value for their baggage, which would entitle them to higher compensation in the event of loss.
While the ruling is advisory and leaves the final decision to the Spanish court, it sets a major precedent for how airlines across the EU will handle compensation for lost or damaged pets. The decision has sparked a debate about the legal status of animals, with some arguing that treating a living, sentient being as a piece of luggage is a step backward in animal welfare.
