In Case C‑876/24, I.G.V. v Vueling Airlines SA, the Third Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court or the CJEU) clarified the scope of the jurisdictional rules contained in the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention). The Court held that the purchase of an airline ticket online from a passenger's home does not, without any further connecting factors linking the dispute to that jurisdiction, render the courts of that place competent to hear a claim for compensation arising from lost baggage. The Court further confirmed that the Montreal Convention's jurisdictional regime applies, by virtue of Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 (Council Regulation), not only to international carriage by air but also to certain flights operated wholly within the territory of a single Member State.
Background to the dispute and the questions posed to the Court
The proceedings before the Court arose from a claim for compensation brought by I.G.V. against Vueling Airlines SA following the loss of checked baggage during a flight from Madrid to Barcelona. The passenger purchased her airline ticket online from her home in Fuenlabrada, Spain, through an independent online booking platform. Upon arriving at Madrid Airport, she separately purchased a checked baggage service directly from the carrier. Following the flight, the baggage was not delivered and was subsequently considered lost.
Following the loss of her baggage, I.G.V. instituted proceedings against Vueling Airlines SA before the Fuenlabrada Court of First Instance (Referring Court), seeking compensation for the loss suffered. Before addressing the substantive merits of the claim, however, the Referring Court was required to determine a preliminary issue, namely whether it possessed jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
The passenger had purchased her ticket online whilst in Fuenlabrada and brought proceedings before the court nearest to her place of residence. However, the flight departed from Madrid and arrived in Barcelona, whilst the baggage service which ultimately gave rise to the dispute had been purchased separately at Madrid Airport. The Referring Court therefore had to determine whether the fact that the contract of carriage had been concluded online from the passenger's home was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the courts of that locality.
An additional complication arose from the nature of the journey itself. Although the passenger's wider travel arrangements appeared to suggest that the Madrid-Barcelona flight may have formed part of a broader itinerary, the information available to the Referring Court was insufficient to establish that the transport in question constituted international carriage for the purposes of the Montreal Convention. As a result, the dispute had to be assessed on the basis that it concerned a domestic flight operated entirely within Spain between a Spanish-resident passenger and a Spanish-based carrier.
Against that backdrop, the Referring Court sought guidance from the Court on the interpretation of Article 33 of the Montreal Convention and its application in the context of modern online booking practices. First, it asked whether Article 3(1) of the Council Regulation extends the jurisdictional framework of the Montreal Convention to claims arising from flights operated entirely within a single Member State. Secondly, it sought clarification as to whether, where an airline ticket is purchased online, the passenger's home address from which the booking was made could constitute the "place of business through which the contract has been entered into" for the purposes of Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention. Finally, it asked whether jurisdiction should be determined by reference to the principal contract of carriage, namely the online flight booking, or by reference to the separate baggage service purchased at Madrid Airport, from which the passenger's claim ultimately arose. Taken together, these questions raised the broader issue of whether the online purchase of an airline ticket is capable of altering the traditional jurisdictional connecting factors established under the Montreal Convention.
The legal framework
The dispute required the Court to consider the interaction between the Montreal Convention and the Council Regulation.
The Montreal Convention establishes a uniform international framework governing the liability of air carriers in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air. In addition to regulating the circumstances in which an air carrier may be held liable, the Convention contains its own jurisdictional regime. Article 33(1) provides that an action for damages may be brought, at the claimant's option, before one of four courts only, namely those of the carrier's domicile, its principal place of business, the place of business through which the contract was concluded, or the place of destination.
The second instrument considered by the Court was the Council Regulation, which was adopted to align the European Union's air carrier liability regime with that established under the Montreal Convention. Article 1 provides that the Regulation applies to the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air, whilst Article 3(1) provides that Community air carriers are subject to the rules of the Montreal Convention governing liability in respect of passengers and their baggage.
The dispute did not concern the meaning of those provisions in isolation, but rather the extent to which Article 3(1) of the Council Regulation imports the jurisdictional framework established under Article 33 of the Montreal Convention into the regime applicable to Community air carriers within the European Union More specifically, the Court was required to determine whether Article 3(1) extends only the substantive liability rules contained in the Montreal Convention or whether it also incorporates the Convention's jurisdictional framework, including Article 33, into the regime applicable to carriage operated by Community air carriers within the European Union.
The Court's ruling
The Court first considered whether Article 3(1) of the Council Regulation extends the jurisdictional framework established under the Montreal Convention to carriage taking place wholly within a single Member State. It answered that question in the affirmative, holding that the jurisdictional rules contained in Article 33 form an integral part of the liability regime established by the Montreal Convention. Accordingly, where the Council Regulation subjects Community air carriers to the liability regime of the Montreal Convention, that extension encompasses not only the Convention's substantive liability provisions but also the jurisdictional framework through which those rights are enforced. As a result, Article 33 applies to actions for damages arising from the loss of baggage during domestic carriage operated by a Community air carrier.
Having established that Article 33 was applicable to the dispute, the Court turned to the interpretation of the phrase "the place of business through which the contract has been entered into". In particular, it considered whether, in circumstances where a ticket is purchased online, the passenger's place of residence from which the booking was made could constitute such a place of business for the purposes of Article 33(1).
The Court rejected that interpretation. It observed that Article 33 establishes a closed and exhaustive list of jurisdictions before which a claim may be brought and that the concept of a "place of business" necessarily refers to a place of business of the carrier itself. The mere fact that a passenger purchases a ticket online from his or her home therefore does not transform that residence into a place of business of the carrier, nor does it create a jurisdictional link between the dispute and the courts of the passenger's domicile.
In reaching that conclusion, the Court attached particular significance to Article 33(2) of the Montreal Convention, which expressly provides an additional jurisdictional ground based on the passenger's principal and permanent residence in claims concerning death or bodily injury. The absence of an equivalent provision in respect of baggage claims indicated that the drafters of the Convention deliberately chose not to confer such a jurisdictional basis in those circumstances. To interpret Article 33(1) as permitting proceedings before the courts of the passenger's residence merely because the contract was concluded online would effectively create a new head of jurisdiction not contemplated by the Convention.
Finally, the Court addressed whether the relevant connecting factor for jurisdictional purposes was the principal contract of carriage or the separate baggage service purchased at Madrid Airport. It held that the relevant place of business is the place through which the principal contract of carriage was concluded. The fact that the baggage service giving rise to the claim had been contracted separately did not alter the jurisdictional analysis under Article 33. Accordingly, the Court rejected the proposition that jurisdiction could vary according to the location at which an ancillary service was purchased and confirmed that the assessment must remain anchored to the principal contract of carriage.
Concluding remarks
The judgment provides useful clarification on the operation of Article 33 of the Montreal Convention in circumstances where air transport services are contracted online. In particular, it confirms that the increasing use of online booking platforms does not alter the jurisdictional connecting factors expressly established by the Convention. The location from which a passenger purchases a ticket online is not, without more, capable of creating an additional jurisdictional basis under Article 33.
The ruling is also notable for confirming that the jurisdictional framework established by the Montreal Convention forms part of the broader liability regime extended to Community air carriers by the Council Regulation. As a result, claims arising from certain domestic flights within the European Union remain subject to the jurisdictional rules contained in the Convention notwithstanding the absence of an international element in the underlying carriage.
Nigel Vella Micallef is an Associate at Ganado Advocates.
Disclaimer: This law report has been compiled by Ganado Advocates, who were not in any way involved as legal advisor for the parties in the judgement being covered in this law report. This report is for informational purposes only and does not contain or convey legal advice. The information contained in this report should not be used or relied upon in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first obtaining legal advice.