On 9 July 2020, the Court of Justice held its judgment in Case C-86/19, SL v Vueling Airlines SA, on the interpretation of Article 17(2) and Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention. The request has been made in proceedings between SL and Vueling Airlines SA (“Vueling”) concerning a claim for compensation for material and non-material damage resulting from the loss of baggage registered by SL during a flight operated by that carrier.

On the arrival of the flight operated by Vueling from Ibiza (Spain) to Fuerteventura (Spain), transferring in Barcelona (Spain), having found out her baggage had not arrived at its destination SL brought an action before the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona (Commercial Court No 9, Barcelona; the “referring court”), demanding the air carrier to pay a compensation corresponding to the maximum limit laid down in Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention for the material and non-material damage caused by the loss of her baggage. By contrast, despite acknowledging that the baggage was not found, Vueling objected arguing that SL has neither indicated the contents of that baggage, its value and weight nor provided supporting documents of the purchases made to replace the items in that baggage, a fundamental evidence in order to be awarded compensation according to Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention.

In light of the need to interpret the relevant legislation, the referring court stayed the proceedings and asked the Court of Justice two preliminary questions.

By the first question, the referring court asked whether Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention, read in conjunction with Article 22(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the sum provided for in the latter provision as a limit on the liability of an air carrier in the event of destruction, loss, damage or delay of checked baggage which has not been the subject of a special declaration of interest in delivery constitutes a maximum amount of compensation or, on the contrary, a fixed sum payable automatically to the passenger. According to the Court, the limitation laid down in Article 22(2) constitutes a maximum limit for compensation which cannot accrue automatically and in full to any passenger, and therefore the amount payable by an air carrier to a passenger whose checked baggage, which has not been the subject of a special declaration of interest in delivery, has been destroyed, lost, damaged or delayed must be determined within such limit and in the light of the circumstances of the case.

By the second question, the referring court asked whether Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention, read in conjunction with Article 22(2) thereof, must be interpreted as determining the detailed rules for setting the amount of compensation payable by an air carrier to a passenger whose checked baggage which has not been the subject of a special declaration of interest in delivery has been destroyed, lost, damaged or delayed. According to the Court, the amount of compensation due to a passenger must be determined by the national court in accordance with the applicable rules of national law, in particular in relation to evidence which, however, should not be any less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions and must not be framed in such a way as to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by the Montreal Convention.

Marco Stillo