Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Eighth ChamberYou are my HERO )
5 June 2025 (*)
( Reference for a preliminary ruling - International air transport - Montreal Convention - Air carrier liability - Article 19 - Damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo - Article 31(2) - Timely notice of complaints - Complaint before the date on which the baggage concerned was placed at the disposal of the person entitled to delivery of it )
In Case C‑292/24,
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), made by decision of 2 January 2024, received at the Court on 25 April 2024, in the proceedings
AD
v
Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA Operadora Unipersonal,
THE COURT (Eighth Chamber),
composed of S. Rodin (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, N. Piçarra and O. Spineanu-Matei, Judges,
Advocate General: M. Szpunar,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having regard to the written procedure,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
– AD, by M. Hotes, Rechtsanwalt,
– the European Commission, by G. von Rintelen and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the second sentence of Article 31(2) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38, 'the Montreal Convention'), which entered into force, so far as the European Union is concerned, on 28 June 2004.
2 The request has been made in proceedings between AD, an air passenger, and Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA Operadora Unipersonal ('Iberia'), an airline, concerning the latter's liability for the damage which resulted from the delay in the carriage by air of AD's baggage and of the persons travelling with him.
Legal context
The Montreal Convention
3 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'.
4 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'.
5 Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, entitled 'Delay', provides:
'The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures.'
6 Article 31 of that convention, entitled 'Timely notice of complaints', provides:
'1. Receipt by the person entitled to delivery of checked baggage or cargo without complaint is prima facie evidence that the same has been delivered in good condition and in accordance with the document of carriage or with the record preserved by the other means referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 3 and paragraph 2 of Article 4.
2. In the case of damage, the person entitled to delivery must complain to the carrier forthwith after the discovery of the damage, and, at the latest, within seven days from the date of receipt in the case of checked baggage and 14 days from the date of receipt in the case of cargo. In the case of delay, the complaint must be made at the latest within 21 days from the date on which the baggage or cargo have been placed at his or her disposal.
3. Every complaint must be made in writing and given or dispatched within the times aforesaid.
4. If no complaint is made within the times aforesaid, no action shall lie against the carrier, save in the case of fraud on its part.'
European Union law
7 According to 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), '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'.
The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
8 On 15 December 2021, AD and two other persons took a flight, booked with Iberia, from Frankfurt am Main (Germany) to Panama City (Panama) with a stopover in Madrid (Spain). As their luggage did not arrive in Panama City on time, AD reported it missing on the same day and contacted Iberia's baggage service centre by telephone.
9 As a result of that situation, AD and the persons travelling with him postponed the continuation of their journey and AD indicated, in an Iberia contact form, that he wished to be contacted personally by that company no later than 18 December 2021, failing which they would purchase replacement equipment and continue their journey. With no response coming from Iberia, they purchased that replacement equipment. It was only after the purchase of that equipment that, on 20 December 2021, that luggage was delivered to Panama City.
10 By an action brought before the Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Local Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), AD claimed from Iberia, pursuant to his own rights and to those which were assigned to him by the persons travelling with him, reimbursement of the cost of that replacement equipment, travel costs and the price of a replacement flight ticket.
11 By a judgment of 30 January 2023, that court rejected the action on the ground that the time limit for complaint provided for in the second sentence of Article 31(2) of the Montreal Convention had not been observed and that the exception provided in Article 31(4) of that convention was not applicable, either.
12 AD brought an appeal against that judgment before the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), which is the referring court.
13 AD submits that his declaration requiring Iberia to contact him by 18 December 2021 constituted an anticipatory complaint duly informing Iberia of the imminent occurrence of damage and complying with the time limit provided for in the second sentence of Article 31(2) of the Montreal Convention. Given that Iberia knew that AD had not been personally contacted within the time limit set by him and that, by that date, the baggage at issue had not been handed over, it was already aware of the occurrence of damage within the meaning of that provision on the said date. Accordingly, it was not necessary to set a new time limit after the handing over of the baggage.
14 Iberia, by contrast, submits that it is only after the handing over of the said baggage that the occurrence of damage can be truly assessed.
15 In those circumstances, the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
'Does the second sentence of Article 31(2) of the Montreal Convention constitute an absolute time limit and must it be interpreted as meaning that the complaint must be made within 21 days from the date on which the baggage is returned, or can the complaint also be made before the baggage is returned?'
Consideration of the question referred
16 By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the second sentence of Article 31(2) of the Montreal Convention must be interpreted as meaning that a complaint due to a delay in the carriage of baggage must absolutely be made within a period of 21 days from the date on which the baggage concerned was placed at the disposal of the person entitled to delivery of it or that that complaint may be made before that date.
17 In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2027/97, as amended by Regulation No 889/2002, the liability of an EU air carrier in respect of passengers and their baggage is to be governed by all provisions of the Montreal Convention relevant to such liability.
18 Consequently, 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, judgment of 17 February 2016, Air Baltic Corporation, C‑429/14, EU:C:2016:88, paragraphs 22 and 23 and the case-law cited).
19 As regard such interpretation, Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969 (United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1155, p. 331), 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 (judgment of 20 October 2022, Laudamotion, C‑111/21, EU:C:2022:808, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).
20 In that regard, it is apparent, first of all, from the wording of the second sentence of Article 31(2) of the Montreal Convention that, in the case of delay in the delivery of baggage or cargo, the person entitled to delivery of it must complain to the carrier at the latest within 21 days from the date on which the baggage or cargo concerned have been placed at his or her disposal.
21 Although that provision establishes a 21-day limitation period from the date of the placing of the baggage at the disposal of the person entitled to delivery in order to make such a complaint, it determines only the last day of the time limit after which it is no longer possible, in principle, validly to make that complaint. A literal interpretation of the wording of that provision suggests that that complaint may be made at any point between the discovery of a delay in the delivery of baggage or cargo and the expiry of that time limit, and thus even before that date.
22 In those circumstances, it must be found that, although Article 31(2) of the Montreal Convention does not explicitly provide for the possibility of making a complaint before the date of the placing of the baggage concerned at the disposal of the person entitled to delivery, that provision is capable of being interpreted as meaning that a complaint thereunder may be made before that date.
23 Next, it should be ascertained whether that interpretation based on the wording of the second sentence of Article 31(2) of the Montreal Convention is supported by the context in which that provision appears.
24 In that regard, it is important, in the first place, to point out that Article 31(1) of the Montreal Convention provides that receipt by the person entitled to delivery of checked baggage without complaint is prima facie evidence that that baggage has been delivered in good condition and in accordance with the document of carriage or with the record preserved by the other means referred to in Article 3(2) of that convention.
25 Thus, the purpose of a complaint such as that at issue in the main proceedings, sent to the air carrier by a passenger, is to inform the carrier that checked baggage has not been delivered in good condition and in accordance with the document of carriage or with the record preserved by the other means referred to in Article 3(2) of the said convention (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 April 2018, Finnair, C‑258/16, EU:C:2018:252, paragraph 50), in particular as regards the time at which such delivery was to take place.
26 In the second place, the first sentence of Article 19 of the Montreal Convention states that 'the carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo'.
27 It follows that Article 31(1) of that convention, read in the light of the first sentence of Article 19 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a complaint made by the passenger concerned, such as that made in the dispute in the main proceedings, is intended to inform the air carrier that damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of baggage or cargo has occurred (see, by analogy, judgment of 12 April 2018, Finnair, C‑258/16, EU:C:2018:252, paragraph 52).
28 Thus, it must be found that it also follows from the context in which the second sentence of Article 31(2) of the Montreal Convention appears that it must be possible to report damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of baggage to the air carrier as soon as the passenger concerned becomes aware of that delay and at the latest within 21 days from the date on which that baggage will be placed at his or her disposal, without that passenger having to wait for the said baggage to be placed at his or her disposal.
29 That finding is moreover confirmed by the fact that, as is apparent from the second sentence of Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, the carrier is not to be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures.
30 As the referring court noted, in essence, in the request for a preliminary ruling, the communication to the carrier concerned of a complaint concerning a delay in the carriage of baggage before the date on which the baggage concerned is placed at the disposal of the person entitled to delivery of it is such as to enable that carrier to collect as quickly as possible the necessary elements in order to be able to provide such proof and thus to be exempted from its liability under that provision.
31 Last, the interpretation set out in paragraph 22 of the present judgment is also consistent with the objectives pursued by the Montreal Convention. According to the third recital of that convention, the States Parties thereto, recognising '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', decided to lay down a system of strict liability for air carriers. A system of that kind implies, as is apparent from the fifth recital of the convention, that an 'equitable balance of interests' be maintained between air carriers and passengers (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 July 2023, Austrian Airlines (First aid on board an aircraft), C‑510/21, EU:C:2023:550, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited).
32 An interpretation of the second sentence of Article 31(2) of that convention, which excludes the possibility for the passengers concerned to make a complaint due to a delay in the carriage of baggage before the date on which their baggage was placed at their disposal, however, would undermine that balance by making the completion of the formality of complaint subject to an unnecessary additional requirement and, moreover, would run counter to the interests of carriers, as follows from paragraph 30 of the present judgment.
33 It is apparent from the foregoing that the answer to the question referred is that the second sentence of Article 31(2) of the Montreal Convention must be interpreted as meaning that a complaint due to a delay in the carriage of baggage may be made before the date on which the baggage concerned was placed at the disposal of the person entitled to delivery of it.
Costs
34 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.
On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby rules:
The second sentence of Article 31(2) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001,
must be interpreted as meaning that a complaint due to a delay in the carriage of baggage may be made before the date on which the baggage concerned was placed at the disposal of the person entitled to delivery of it.
[Signatures]
* Language of the case: German.
© European Union
The source of this judgment is the Europa web site. The information on this site is subject to a information found here: Important legal notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.