Buying an airline ticket online does not automatically allow proceedings concerning lost baggage to be brought before the court at the passenger’s domicile

Passengers who purchase an airline ticket online from home cannot rely on this fact to request that a dispute concerning lost baggage be heard by the court at their place of residence. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled, in a case against Vueling Airlines, that the passenger’s home does not thereby become the carrier’s place of business through which the contract was concluded. European rules require the jurisdictional criteria under the Montreal Convention to be applied to the domestic flights covered by the judgment as well.

In brief

The CJEU rejects the idea that an online purchase from home makes the passenger’s home a place of business of the carrier. The jurisdiction of the court must follow from the criteria of the Montreal Convention.

The rules also apply where the flight, the passenger’s residence and the airline’s registered office in the EU are all in the same Member State. European rules extend the rules on the competent court to this domestic transport as well.

The carriage of baggage is ancillary to the passenger’s journey. Purchasing it separately at the airport does not change the contract used to apply the place-of-business criterion.

The judgment answers questions from a Spanish court in a dispute against Vueling. It does not establish whether the passenger is to receive compensation or what amount would be due to her.

Case C-876/24 arises from the journey of a passenger who had purchased, through the e-Dreams platform from her home in Fuenlabrada, a Vueling ticket for a Madrid–Barcelona flight in November 2023. At Madrid Airport, she separately contracted for the carriage of her baggage. The baggage was lost on this route, and the passenger sought compensation before the court in Fuenlabrada, her place of residence.

The Spanish judge first had to determine which rules governed its jurisdiction. Although the passenger continued her journey from Barcelona to Rome, the case file did not contain the information necessary to regard the transport at issue as international. The court therefore examined a flight between two Spanish airports, involving a passenger domiciled in Spain and a company established in the same country. If the Montreal Convention rules had not applied, Spanish procedural law would have allowed the consumer to choose the court of her place of residence.

However, the Luxembourg Court held that Regulation No 2027/97, as amended in 2002, extends to domestic air transport both the relevant rules on liability towards passengers and their baggage and the rules establishing the competent court. No international element is necessary for their application in the situation under consideration. The rationale is the existence of a uniform regime for EU air carriers, regardless of whether the flight is domestic or international.

The Convention gives the claimant four criteria for choosing a court, within the territory of a State party. These concern the carrier’s domicile, its principal place of business, the place of business through which the contract was made, or the place of destination. Purchasing the ticket on a computer located at home does not add the passenger’s domicile to this list. The court there could have jurisdiction if another criterion provided for by the Convention is fulfilled, not by virtue of the mere online purchase.

The Spanish court had argued that the commercial advantages of online sales might justify allowing the company to be sued near the passenger’s home. The CJEU replied that consumer protection must be reconciled with the balance between the interests of passengers and carriers. In the Court’s reasoning, the accessibility of an offer on the internet cannot oblige the company to defend itself in courts anywhere in the world, including places where it has no physical presence and which have no connection with the transport concerned.

The Convention separately provides a criterion linked to the passenger’s principal and permanent residence for damage resulting from death or injury. This too presupposes conditions concerning the carrier’s activities in the State concerned. The Court stresses that the exception does not apply to lost baggage and cannot be extended to such disputes by interpreting online sales.

Nor does the separate purchase of the baggage service at Madrid Airport change the reference contract for the place-of-business criterion. The CJEU considers the carriage of baggage to be ancillary to the carriage of the passenger, so the relevant contract remains the contract for the person’s journey. This interpretation makes it possible to designate the same court on the basis of this criterion for damage concerning the passenger and the baggage, even if the services were purchased in different places.

The three answers follow the solutions proposed by Advocate General Dean Spielmann in his Opinion of 26 February 2026. He had additionally explored the possibility that, for online contracts, the airport where the company formally carries out passenger and baggage check-in procedures could be considered the relevant place of business. The judgment does not endorse this additional interpretation and does not automatically declare the court at the departure airport competent.

The dispute must be resolved in Spain, in accordance with the interpretation given by the CJEU. The preliminary ruling neither awards nor rejects the compensation sought by the passenger and does not determine its amount. It clarifies the jurisdictional rules applicable to the claim for lost baggage, without replacing the hearing of the case by the national court.

https://2eu.brussels/ro/news/biletul-de-avion-cumparat-online-nu-permite-automat-un-proces-pentru-bagaj-pierdut-la-domiciliul-pasagerului