{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-876-24", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-876-24)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-06", "fingerprint": "ewai:se:cbc925", "proof": "sha256:2ed7405b92fa230f9cc3e6af3942d0b8baa4ce01dcad1024841f950b46a4aaa0", "jurisdiction": "se", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "eu:c-876-24", "jurisdiction": "eu", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Provisional text", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "17 September 2026 ( * )", "paragraphs": [ "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20" ] }, { "title": "Judgment", "paragraphs": [ "para_22", "para_23" ] }, { "title": "Legal context", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "International law", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties", "paragraphs": [ "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31" ] }, { "title": "(a)      leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(b)      leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.’", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The Warsaw Convention", "paragraphs": [ "para_35", "para_36" ] }, { "title": "The Montreal Convention", "paragraphs": [ "para_38", "para_39" ] }, { "title": "9         Article 1 of that convention provides, in paragraphs 1 to 3 thereof:", "paragraphs": [ "para_41", "para_42", "para_43" ] }, { "title": "10       Article 3(3) of that convention is worded as follows:", "paragraphs": [ "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50" ] }, { "title": "13       Article 22(2) of that convention states:", "paragraphs": [ "para_52" ] }, { "title": "14       Article 33(1) and (2) of that convention, headed ‘Jurisdiction’, provides:", "paragraphs": [ "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58" ] }, { "title": "European Union law", "paragraphs": [ "para_60", "para_61" ] }, { "title": "19       Article 1 of Regulation No 2027/97 provides:", "paragraphs": [ "para_63" ] }, { "title": "20       Article 3(1) of that regulation states:", "paragraphs": [ "para_65" ] }, { "title": "21       Article 6(1) of that regulation is worded as follows:", "paragraphs": [ "para_67" ] }, { "title": "The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling", "paragraphs": [ "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83" ] }, { "title": "The first question", "paragraphs": [ "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103" ] }, { "title": "The second question", "paragraphs": [ "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118" ] }, { "title": "The third question", "paragraphs": [ "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128" ] }, { "title": "Costs", "paragraphs": [ "para_130" ] }, { "title": "On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:", "paragraphs": [ "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Provisional text", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "17 September 2026 ( * )", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Carriage of passengers and their baggage by air – Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 – Article 1 – Article 3(1) – Carriage by air within a single Member State – Montreal Convention – Article 33(1) – Court having jurisdiction – Place where the carrier has a place of business through which the contract has been entered into – Contract of carriage entered into online – Loss of baggage )", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "In Case C‑876/24,", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Fuenlabrada (Court of First Instance No 1, Fuenlabrada, Spain), made by decision of 16 December 2024, received at the Court on 18 December 2024, in the proceedings", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "I.G.V.", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "v", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "Vueling Airlines SA,", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "THE COURT (Third Chamber),", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "composed of C. Lycourgos, President of the Chamber, O. Spineanu-Matei, S. Rodin, N. Piçarra and N. Fenger (Rapporteur), Judges,", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Advocate General: D. Spielmann,", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Registrar: C. Strömholm, Administrator,", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 19 November 2025,", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "–        Vueling Airlines SA, by J. Fillat Boneta and L. Fillat Torné, abogados,", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "–        the Spanish Government, by S. Núñez Silva and A. Torró Molés, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "–        the European Commission, by R. Álvarez Vinagre and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 February 2026,", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "gives the following", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "Judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "1         This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 33 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999, and adopted on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38; ‘the Montreal Convention’), and of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of the Council of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air (OJ 1997 L 285, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 May 2002 (OJ 2002 L 140, p. 2; ‘Regulation No 2027/97’).", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "2         The request has been made in proceedings between I.G.V. and Vueling Airlines SA, concerning compensation for the damage caused by the loss of baggage during carriage by air.", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "Legal context", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "International law", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "3         The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties was concluded in Vienna on 23 May 1969 ( United Nations Treaty Series , Vol. 1155, p. 331).", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "4         Under Article 31(1) of that convention, entitled ‘General rule of interpretation’:", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "‘A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.’", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "5         Article 32 of that convention, entitled ‘Supplementary means of interpretation’, is worded as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "‘Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "(a)      leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "(b)      leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.’", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "The Warsaw Convention", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "6         Article 28(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, signed in Warsaw on 12 October 1929 (‘the Warsaw Convention’), states:", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "‘An action for damages must be brought, at the option of the plaintiff, in the territory of one of the States Parties, either before the court of the domicile of the carrier or of its principal place of business, or where it has a place of business through which the contract has been made or before the court at the place of destination.’", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "The Montreal Convention", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "7         According to the third recital of the Montreal Convention, the States Parties to that convention recognise ‘the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers in international carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation based on the principle of restitution’.", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "8         The fifth recital of that convention states that ‘collective State action for further harmonisation and codification of certain rules governing international carriage by air through a new Convention is the most adequate means of achieving an equitable balance of interests’.", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "9         Article 1 of that convention provides, in paragraphs 1 to 3 thereof:", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "‘1.      This Convention applies to all international carriage of persons, baggage or cargo performed by aircraft for reward. It applies equally to gratuitous carriage by aircraft performed by an air transport undertaking.", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "2.      For the purposes of this Convention, the expression international carriage means any carriage in which, according to the agreement between the parties, the place of departure and the place of destination, whether or not there be a break in the carriage or a transhipment, are situated either within the territories of two States Parties, or within the territory of a single State Party if there is an agreed stopping place within the territory of another State, even if that State is not a State Party. Carriage between two points within the territory of a single State Party without an agreed stopping place within the territory of another State is not international carriage for the purposes of this Convention.", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "3.      Carriage to be performed by several successive carriers is deemed, for the purposes of this Convention, to be one undivided carriage if it has been regarded by the parties as a single operation, whether it had been agreed upon under the form of a single contract or of a series of contracts, and it does not lose its international character merely because one contract or a series of contracts is to be performed entirely within the territory of the same State.’", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "10       Article 3(3) of that convention is worded as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "‘The carrier shall deliver to the passenger a baggage identification tag for each piece of checked baggage.’", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "11       Articles 17 to 37 of the Montreal Convention constitute Chapter III thereof, entitled ‘Liability of the carrier and extent of compensation for damage’.", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "12       Article 17 of that convention, entitled ‘Death and injury of passengers – Damage to baggage’, provides, in paragraphs 2 to 4:", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "‘2.      The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of destruction or loss of, or of damage to, checked baggage upon condition only that the event which caused the destruction, loss or damage took place on board the aircraft or during any period within which the checked baggage was in the charge of the carrier. However, the carrier is not liable if and to the extent that the damage resulted from the inherent defect, quality or vice of the baggage. In the case of unchecked baggage, including personal items, the carrier is liable if the damage resulted from its fault or that of its servants or agents.", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "3.      If the carrier admits the loss of the checked baggage, or if the checked baggage has not arrived at the expiration of [21] days after the date on which it ought to have arrived, the passenger is entitled to enforce against the carrier the rights which flow from the contract of carriage.", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "4.      Unless otherwise specified, in this Convention the term “baggage” means both checked baggage and unchecked baggage.’", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "13       Article 22(2) of that convention states:", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "‘In the carriage of baggage, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay is limited to … Special Drawing Rights for each passenger unless the passenger has made, at the time when the checked baggage was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. …’", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "14       Article 33(1) and (2) of that convention, headed ‘Jurisdiction’, provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "‘1.      An action for damages must be brought, at the option of the plaintiff, in the territory of one of the States Parties, either before the court of the domicile of the carrier or of its principal place of business, or where it has a place of business through which the contract has been made or before the court at the place of destination.", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "2.      In respect of damage resulting from the death or injury of a passenger, an action may be brought before one of the courts mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article, or in the territory of a State Party in which at the time of the accident the passenger has his or her principal and permanent residence and to or from which the carrier operates services for the carriage of passengers by air, either on its own aircraft, or on another carrier's aircraft pursuant to a commercial agreement, and in which that carrier conducts its business of carriage of passengers by air from premises leased or owned by the carrier itself or by another carrier with which it has a commercial agreement.’", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "15       Article 35 of the Montreal Convention, entitled ‘Limitation of actions’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "‘The right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped.’", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "16       At the end of that convention, it is stated that it was drafted ‘in the English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish languages, all texts being equally authentic’.", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "European Union law", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "17       Following the signing of the Montreal Convention, Regulation No 2027/97 was substantially amended by Regulation No 889/2002. As is apparent from recital 6 of that latter regulation, its objective was to align Regulation No 2027/97 with the provisions of that convention by creating a uniform system of liability for international carriage by air.", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "18       It is apparent from recitals 8, 9 and 13 of Regulation No 889/2002, first of all, that, in the internal aviation market, the distinction between national and international transport has been eliminated and it is therefore appropriate to have the same level and nature of liability in both international and national transport within the European Union, next, that a single set of rules for all EU air carriers should be created, and, lastly, that it would be impractical for EU air carriers and confusing for their passengers if they were to apply different liability regimes on different routes across their networks.", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "19       Article 1 of Regulation No 2027/97 provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "‘This Regulation implements the relevant provisions of the Montreal Convention in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air and lays down certain supplementary provisions. It also extends the application of these provisions to carriage by air within a single Member State.’", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "20       Article 3(1) of that regulation states:", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "‘The liability of a Community air carrier in respect of passengers and their baggage shall be governed by all provisions of the Montreal Convention relevant to such liability.’", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "21       Article 6(1) of that regulation is worded as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "‘All air carriers shall, when selling carriage by air in the Community, ensure that a summary of the main provisions governing liability for passengers and their baggage, including deadlines for filing an action for compensation and the possibility of making a special declaration for baggage, is made available to passengers at all points of sale, including sale by telephone and via the Internet. …’", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "22       Vueling Airlines is an air carrier having its registered office in Viladecans (Province of Barcelona, Spain).", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "23       I.G.V. entered into an air transport contract with Vueling Airlines for a flight scheduled for 8 November 2023 between Madrid (Spain) and Barcelona (Spain). I.G.V. entered into that contract from her home in Fuenlabrada (Spain), using the online sales platform e-Dreams.", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "24       As an additional service to that flight, I.G.V. concluded, in person at the Madrid airport, a contract for the transport of her baggage. That baggage was lost during the journey between Madrid and Barcelona, the loss having been discovered at Barcelona airport, from where I.G.V. took a second flight to Rome (Italy).", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "25       I.G.V. subsequently brought an action before the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Fuenlabrada (Court of First Instance No 1, Fuenlabrada, Spain), which is the referring court, seeking compensation for the damage caused by the loss of her baggage during carriage by air between the Madrid airport and the Barcelona airport on the basis of the Montreal Convention.", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "26       That court is uncertain, however, as to whether it has jurisdiction to deal with such a claim. It considers that, in the present case, there was no ‘international carriage’ within the meaning of Article 1 of that convention. It notes, in that connection, that I.G.V. did not provide any documentation or information on the purchase of the flight to Rome or on a possible return flight between Rome and Madrid.", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "27       On the basis of that finding, the referring court asks, in the first place, whether Article 33 of that convention also applies to carriage by air within a single Member State. That court, which is that of I.G.V.’s place of residence, states that, if that were not the case, it would have jurisdiction to deal with the claim before it under the rules laid down by the Spanish Code of Civil Procedure, which allow consumers to opt for the forum corresponding to their place of domicile.", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "28       By contrast, assuming that Article 33 of the Montreal Convention is applicable to the carriage at issue in the main proceedings, the referring court questions, in the second place, whether it may have jurisdiction, as the court of the place of domicile of the passenger, to deal with a claim for compensation concerning a flight the ticket for which was purchased online from that place of domicile, by virtue of the ground of jurisdiction corresponding to the place ‘where [the carrier] has a place of business through which the contract has been made’, provided for in that Article 33(1).", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "29       That court notes, in that connection, that the forum corresponding to the place where ‘the passenger has his or her principal and permanent residence’ is explicitly referred to only in Article 33(2) of that convention, as regards the action for compensation for damage resulting from the death or injury of a passenger. The referring court specifies that the addition of the forum corresponding to the passenger’s domicile to the choices offered to the plaintiff by that provision was debated in the preparatory work that led to the adoption of that convention and was ultimately accepted as part of a compromise.", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "30       Furthermore, that court highlights, first, that a Canadian court ruled that the concept of the ‘place of business through which the contract has been made’, within the meaning of Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention, could not be interpreted as referring to the computer used to purchase the transport tickets and, secondly, that Spanish courts and the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy) have interpreted that provision as being capable of covering the court of the place of the principal and permanent residence from which a passenger purchased a ticket online.", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "31       The referring court considers that the rules for interpreting treaties in Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties do not preclude that interpretation of Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention. Accordingly, the English-language version of that provision could justify a broad interpretation of the ground of territorial jurisdiction corresponding to the place where the carrier has a place of business through which the contract has been made, without that interpretation being contradicted by the preparatory work relating to that convention. Furthermore, that convention is aimed at ensuring protection of the interests of consumers in international carriage by air. The other grounds of territorial jurisdiction referred to in Article 33(1) do not ensure the protection of those interests, although it could, by contrast, be justified that the commercial advantages airlines gain from selling their services online are offset by the possibility of liability being incurred in the jurisdiction nearest to the home of the passenger who entered into an air transport contract online with those airlines.", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "32       In the third place, if that interpretation, which is favourable to the passenger, of Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention were not accepted, the referring court asks whether the expression ‘place of business through which the contract has been made’, in that provision, should be understood as meaning the place of business through which the principal air transport contract, or principal air transport service, was concluded, or if it can designate the place where an ancillary service, such as the additional service of baggage transport, was contracted, in particular where, as in the present case, the damage caused relates specifically to that ancillary service.", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "33       In those circumstances, the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Fuenlabrada (Court of First Instance No 1, Fuenlabrada) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "‘(1)      Must Article 3(1) of Regulation [No 2027/97] be interpreted as meaning that the liability of a Community air carrier in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage is also to be governed by Article 33 of the Montreal Convention[, including] in the case of carriage within a Member State of the European Union?", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "(2)      May Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention be interpreted as meaning that the place where the carrier has a place of business through which the air transport contract has been entered into could be the principal and permanent residence of the passenger, if the contract was entered into online?", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "(3)      Must Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention be interpreted as meaning that the place where the carrier has a place of business through which the contract has been entered into refers to the place in which the principal obligation of carriage by air was contracted for and not the place in which the ancillary service, from which the carrier’s liability arises, was contracted for, if the latter place differs from the former?’", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "The first question", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "34       As a preliminary point, it should be noted that it is apparent from the information provided by the referring court, and subject to any subsequent verifications by that court in that connection, that the carriage by air during which the baggage belonging to I.G.V. was lost was between two airports located in the territory of the same Member State, namely Spain, a territory in which the principal residence of I.G.V. and the registered office of Vueling Airlines are also located. The referring court clearly stated that it did not have information allowing it to find that that carriage had the characteristics of ‘international carriage’ within the meaning of Article 1 of the Montreal Convention.", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "35       Accordingly, by its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 1 of Regulation No 2027/97, read in conjunction with Article 3(1) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention is to govern the determination of the courts having territorial jurisdiction to hear an action for damages in the event of loss of baggage during carriage by air between two airports located in the territory of a single Member State brought by a person resident in that Member State against an EU air carrier with its registered office in that Member State.", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "36       In that connection, it should be noted that since the date of entry into force of the Montreal Convention, so far as the European Union is concerned, namely 28 June 2004, the provisions of that convention have been an integral part of the EU legal order and the Court has jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling concerning its interpretation (see, to that effect, judgments of 10 January 2006, IATA and ELFAA , C‑344/04, EU:C:2006:10, paragraph 36, and of 5 June 2025, Iberia (Anticipatory complaint) , C‑292/24, EU:C:2025:402, paragraph 18).", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "37       Article 33(1) of that convention provides that any action for damages brought on the basis of that convention may be brought, at the option of the plaintiff, in the territory of one of the States Parties, either before the court of the domicile of the carrier or of its principal place of business, or where it has a place of business through which the contract has been made or before the court at the place of destination.", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "38       It is apparent from the case-law of the Court that Article 33(1) of that convention, as regards actions for damages falling within the scope of that convention, governs not only the allocation of jurisdiction as between the States Parties to the convention, but also the allocation of territorial jurisdiction as between the courts of each of those States (judgment of 7 November 2019, Guaitoli and Others , C‑213/18, EU:C:2019:927, paragraph 55).", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "39       In that connection, the Court emphasises that the interpretation that the purpose of that provision is to designate not only the State Party competent to hear the action for damages concerned, but also the courts of that State before which the action is to be brought, is such as to contribute to attaining the objective of enhanced unification, as expressed in the preamble to the Montreal Convention, and to protect the interests of consumers, while at the same time ensuring a fair balance with the interests of carriers (judgment of 7 November 2019, Guaitoli and Others , C‑213/18, EU:C:2019:927, paragraph 53).", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "40       As regards the scope of the Montreal Convention, under Article 1(1) of that convention, it applies to all international carriage of persons, baggage or cargo performed by aircraft for reward.", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "41       The meaning of ‘international carriage’ is defined in Article 1(2) of that convention as meaning any carriage in which, according to the agreement between the parties, the place of departure and the place of destination, whether or not there be a break in the carriage or a transhipment, are situated either within the territories of two States Parties, or within the territory of a single State Party if there is an agreed stopping place within the territory of another State, even if that State is not a State Party. According to that provision, carriage between two points within the territory of a single State Party without an agreed stopping place within the territory of another State is not international carriage for the purposes of that convention.", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "42       However, it should be noted, in the first place, that, as inserted by Regulation No 889/2002, Article 1 of Regulation No 2027/97 provides that that regulation implements the relevant provisions of the Montreal Convention in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air and that it also extends the application of those provisions to carriage by air within a single Member State.", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "43       Adopted on the basis of Article 80(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 100(2) TFEU), under which the EU legislature may adopt any appropriate provision for carriage by air (see, to that effect, Opinion 2/15 (Free Trade Agreement with Singapore) of 16 May 2017, EU:C:2017:376, paragraph 169), Article 1 of Regulation No 2027/97 aims to create, as stated in recitals 8, 9 and 13 of Regulation No 889/2002, a single set of rules establishing, in the field of carriage by air of passengers, the same level and nature of liability for air carriers, irrespective of whether the flights operated by those carriers are domestic or international (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 February 2015, Wucher Helicopter and Euro-Aviation Versicherung , C‑6/14, EU:C:2015:122, paragraph 34).", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "44       The extension of the territorial scope of the rules of the Montreal Convention that Article 1 of Regulation No 2027/97 entails is not limited by other provisions of that regulation. In particular, no provision of that regulation renders the applicability of those rules to cases of domestic carriages by air subject to there being an international element.", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "45       Accordingly, neither the fact that the carriage by air concerned in the main proceedings does not fall within the concept of ‘international carriage’ as referred to in paragraph 41 above, nor the fact that the contract for domestic carriage by air during which the passenger’s baggage was lost was concluded, as is the case here, between two parties residing or established in the territory of the Member State exclusively concerned by that carriage, have an impact on the applicability of the provisions of the Montreal Convention to the liability resulting from such a loss of baggage.", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "46       In the second place, Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2027/97 provides that the liability of an EU air carrier in respect of passengers and their baggage shall be governed by ‘all provisions of the Montreal Convention relevant to such liability’.", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "47       Chapter III of that convention, entitled ‘Liability of the carrier and extent of compensation for damage’, includes both substantive provisions relating to the conditions for liability of air carriers and provisions concerning the action for damages, such as Article 33 of that convention.", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "48       It follows that the reference made in Article 3(1) of that regulation to ‘all provisions of the Montreal Convention relevant to such liability’ necessarily includes Article 33(1) of that convention.", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "49       Accordingly, under Article 3 of Regulation No 2027/97, read in conjunction with Article 1 thereof, the court with territorial jurisdiction to hear an action for damages resulting from the loss of baggage is to be designated according to the same rules irrespective of whether that loss occurred during a domestic or international carriage by air.", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "50       That conclusion is reinforced by the objective of Regulation No 2027/97, as amended by Regulation No 889/2002, which, as has been pointed out in paragraph 43 above, aims to establish a single set of rules governing the liability of air carriers.", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "51       That conclusion is not called into question by the fact that Article 1 of Regulation No 2027/97 states that that regulation implements only ‘the relevant provisions of the Montreal Convention in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage’. As highlighted in paragraph 40 above, the Montreal Convention applies both to the international carriage of persons and their baggage and to the international carriage of goods. By contrast, Regulation No 2027/97 covers only the carriage by air of persons and their baggage. Accordingly, by stating that Regulation No 2027/97 implements only the ‘relevant provisions’ of that convention, while extending their scope to domestic carriage by air, Article 1 of that regulation is intended to ensure that only the provisions of that convention relating to the liability of air carriers with regard to passengers and their baggage in international carriage by air also apply to domestic carriage by air of passengers and their baggage.", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "52       In the light of all of the foregoing, the answer to the first question is that Article 1 of Regulation No 2027/97, read in conjunction with Article 3(1) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention is to govern the determination of the courts having territorial jurisdiction to hear an action for damages in the event of loss of baggage during carriage by air between two airports located in the territory of a single Member State brought by a person resident in that Member State against an EU air carrier with its registered office in that Member State.", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "The second question", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "53       By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention must be interpreted as meaning that, where a passenger’s air transport contract was entered into online, the court corresponding to that passenger’s principal and permanent residence may have jurisdiction to hear an action for damages brought against an air carrier for damage resulting from the loss of that passenger’s baggage, by virtue of the ground of territorial jurisdiction corresponding to the place ‘where [the carrier] has a place of business through which the contract has been made’.", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "54       In that connection, it is apparent from the case-law of the Court that the expression ‘where [the carrier] has a place of business through which the contract has been made’ in Article 33(1) must be given, having regard to the aim of the Montreal Convention, which is to unify the rules for international carriage by air, a uniform and autonomous interpretation, for the European Union and its Member States. Thus, account must be taken not of the various meanings that may be given to that concept in the internal laws of the Member States, but of the rules of interpretation of general international law which are binding on the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 October 2022, Laudamotion , C‑111/21, EU:C:2022:808, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "55       Article 31 of the Vienna Convention, which reflects customary international law and whose provisions are part of the EU legal order, states that a treaty must be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. Moreover, Article 32 of that convention provides that recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty at issue and the circumstances of its conclusion (judgment of 20 October 2022, Laudamotion , C‑111/21, EU:C:2022:808, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "56       As regards, in the first place, the wording of Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention, the expression ‘ lieu où [ le transporteur ] possède un établissement par le soin duquel le contrat a été conclu ’ in the French-language version, ‘where [the carrier] has a place of business through which the contract has been made’ in the English-language version, ‘ en que tiene una oficina por cuyo conducto se ha celebrado el contrato ’ in the Spanish-language version, and ‘ по месту, где он имеет коммерческое предприятие, посредством которого был заключен договор ’ in the Russian-language version, do not refer, in their ordinary meaning, to the place where the person bringing the action for damages has his or her principal or permanent residence.", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "57       On the contrary, it should be noted that both the ground of territorial jurisdiction referred to in the preceding paragraph and the three other grounds of territorial jurisdiction referred to in Article 33(1) refer to places corresponding either to the carrier’s physical presence, namely its domicile, its principal place of business or a place of business belonging to it, or to a place that has a link with the carriage, namely the place of destination.", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "58       As regards, in the second place, the context of Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention, it must be borne in mind that, unlike that paragraph 1, paragraph 2 of that article explicitly refers to the passenger’s principal and permanent residence as the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the court called upon to hear an action for damages brought against an air carrier.", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "59       Article 33(2) of the Montreal Convention states that an action for damages in respect of the damage resulting from the death or injury of a passenger may also be brought in the territory of a State Party in which at the time of the accident the passenger has his or her principal and permanent residence, and to or from which the carrier operates services for the carriage of passengers by air, either on its own aircraft, or on another carrier’s aircraft pursuant to a commercial agreement, and in which that carrier conducts its business of carriage of passengers by air from premises leased or owned by the carrier itself or by another carrier with which it has a commercial agreement.", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "60       That jurisdiction rule, which is in addition to those set out in Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention, does not apply to claims for compensation concerning the loss of baggage. Moreover, that rule refers to the passenger’s principal and permanent residence at the time of the accident only in so far as the carrier has an operational presence in the territory of the State Party in the specified manner.", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "61       To interpret the expression ‘where [the carrier] has a place of business through which the contract has been made’ in Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention as meaning that it also designates the place of the passenger’s principal and permanent residence in cases where the contract was entered into online would amount, in essence, to the addition, by Article 33(2) of that convention, of an additional ground of territorial jurisdiction in respect only of damages resulting from the death or injury of passengers being deprived of any practical effect in cases of damage resulting from contracts entered into online.", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "62       As regards, in the third place, the purpose and origin of Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance with the third and fifth recitals of that convention, the State Parties to that convention intended not only to ‘[ensure] protection of the interests of consumers in international carriage by air’, but also to safeguard an ‘equitable balance of interests’, inter alia between the interests of air carriers and those of passengers.", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "63       As the Advocate General stated, in essence, in point 81 of his Opinion, it would be contrary to the objective of an equitable balance of interests between the interests of consumers and those of air carriers, and to the need to ensure greater predictability and greater legal certainty in the field of carriage by air of passengers, to consider that, by selling air transport services online, those carriers must bear the risk of being sued before courts anywhere in the world where the online offer is available, including in places where they do not have any physical presence and where they have no link with the carriage concerned.", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "64       It must also be borne in mind that the jurisdiction rule laid down in Article 33(2) of the Montreal Convention was added to those in the Warsaw Convention, at a time when the State Parties to the Montreal Convention were aware of the use of online booking of passenger air transport services.", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "65       As the Advocate General noted in points 45 to 48 of his Opinion, it is apparent from the preparatory work for the Montreal Convention that the ground of territorial jurisdiction corresponding to the passenger’s domicile or principal and permanent residence was the subject of discussion between the State Parties which led to the scope of that ground being limited to the single scenario provided for in Article 33(2) of that convention.", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "66       It follows from the foregoing that the answer to the second question is that Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention must be interpreted as meaning that, where a passenger’s air transport contract has been entered into online, the court corresponding to that passenger’s principal and permanent residence does not have jurisdiction to hear an action for damages brought against an air carrier for damage resulting from resulting from the loss of that passenger’s baggage, by virtue of the ground of territorial jurisdiction corresponding to the place ‘where [the carrier] has a place of business through which the contract has been made’.", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "The third question", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "67       By its third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention must be interpreted as meaning that ‘where [the carrier] has a place of business through which the contract has been made’ refers to the place where the carrier has the place of business through which the passenger’s air transport contract has been made, including where the action for damages concerns damage resulting from the loss of that passenger’s baggage and the contract for carriage of that baggage was made through a place of business of that carrier located in another place.", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "68       While Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention does not clarify the nature of the ‘contract’ to which it refers, it follows from a reading of that convention as a whole that the carriage of baggage is envisaged by that convention as being an ancillary service to that of the carriage of the passenger.", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "69       The content of several provisions of that convention, such as Article 3(3), Article 17(2) to (4) and Article 22(2) of that convention, assumes that baggage is necessarily carried with the passenger. Furthermore, in its ordinary meaning in the context of carriage by air, the term ‘baggage’ denotes a container holding the passenger’s belongings which the passenger of a flight brings with him or her during his or her journey.", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "70       The same applies to Regulation No 2027/97 which, inter alia in Article 1 and Article 3(1) thereof, refers to baggage as being that of the passenger being carried by air.", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "71       Moreover, the wording of Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention and, more specifically, the use of the expression ‘a place of business through which the contract has been made’ in the singular suggests that, as regards the carriage by air of passengers and baggage, a single contract is relevant for the purposes of determining the competent court.", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "72       It follows from that textual and contextual analysis that, as regards an action for damages brought against an air carrier for damage suffered as a result of the loss of baggage, the contract relevant for the purposes of determining the competent court on the basis of that convention is the contract for the carriage of the passenger.", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "73       That interpretation makes it possible to find, in the case of an action for damages brought against an air carrier for damage caused to both baggage and passengers, that a single court has jurisdiction on the basis of the place where the carrier has a place of business through which the contract has been made, even where the passenger carriage service was not purchased in the same place as the baggage carriage service.", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "74       Accordingly, that interpretation is consistent with the objectives noted in paragraph 62 above.", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "75       In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the third question is that Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention must be interpreted as meaning that ‘where [the carrier] has a place of business through which the contract has been made’ refers to the place where the carrier has the place of business through which the passenger’s air transport contract has been made, including where the action for damages concerns damage resulting from the loss of that passenger’s baggage and the contract for carriage of that baggage was made through a place of business of that carrier located in another place.", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "Costs", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "76       Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "1.       Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of the Council of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 May 2002, read in conjunction with Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2027/97,", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "must be interpreted as meaning that Article 33(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999, and adopted on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, is to govern the determination of the courts having territorial jurisdiction to hear an action for damages in the event of loss of baggage during carriage by air between two airports located in the territory of a single Member State brought by a person resident in that Member State against an EU air carrier with its registered office in that Member State.", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "2.       Article 33(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999, and adopted on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539,", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "must be interpreted as meaning that, where a passenger’s air transport contract has been entered into online, the court corresponding to that passenger’s principal and permanent residence does not have jurisdiction to hear an action for damages brought against an air carrier for damage resulting from the loss of that passenger’s baggage, by virtue of the ground of territorial jurisdiction corresponding to the place ‘where [the carrier] has a place of business through which the contract has been made’.", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "3.       Article 33(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999, and adopted on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539,", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "must be interpreted as meaning that ‘where [the carrier] has a place of business through which the contract has been made’ refers to the place where the carrier has the place of business through which the passenger’s air transport contract has been made, including where the action for damages concerns damage resulting from the loss of that passenger’s baggage and the contract for carriage of that baggage was made through a place of business of that carrier located in another place.", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "[Signatures]", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "*       Language of the case: Spanish.", "paragraph_id": "para_139" } ], "word_count": 6977, "cites": [ "C-876/24", "C-344/04", "C-292/24", "C-213/18", "C-6/14", "C-111/21" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "b61c7554f7022e6cbbcb5234b7059c9ab9b22cabfae017084255c9e6c0c53bb6", "source_url": "https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62024CJ0876", "fetched_at": "2026-09-29T04:22:41.951+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-876-24", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-876-24", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-876-24", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-876-24" }, "hash": "sha256:2ed7405b92fa230f9cc3e6af3942d0b8baa4ce01dcad1024841f950b46a4aaa0", "version": "legal-2026-10-06", "expires": "2026-10-07T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-06+legal-2026-10-06+2026-10-06T07:52:01", "content_hash": "sha256:2ed7405b92fa230f9cc3e6af3942d0b8baa4ce01dcad1024841f950b46a4aaa0", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-06T09:18:00.262Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-876-24", "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }