The CJEU Allows Advance Complaints for Delayed Baggage (Article 31.2 of the Montreal Convention)
On 5 June 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on case C-292/24 (AD vs. Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España, S.A. – Operadora Unipersonal), addressing a key point of the Montreal Convention, namely: can a complaint be lodged for delayed delivery of baggage before it is made available to the passenger?
The context of the dispute is based on a claim filed by AD, an air passenger, against the airline Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España, S.A.- Operadora Unipersonal (hereinafter, ‘Iberia’), in relation to the latter’s liability for the damage caused by the delay in the air transport of AD’s luggage. The passenger reported the incident on the same day, requesting contact from the airline. When he did not receive a response, he made the purchases he deemed necessary to cover his needs. A few days later, his luggage was delivered to him. Iberia, for its part, refused to compensate the expenses related to the replacement purchases made, as well as the travel expenses and the price of the tickets corresponding to a replacement flight, arguing that the complaint did not comply with the 21-day deadline set forth in Article 31.2 of the 1999 Montreal Convention.
The preliminary ruling referred to the CJEU concerned the interpretation of the second sentence of Article 31.2 of the Montreal Convention, approved by Decision 2001/539/EC and in force for the Union since 28 June 2004. Article 31.2 of the aforementioned Convention states: “[…] In the event of delay, the complaint must be made no later than twenty-one days from the date on which the baggage or cargo was made available to you.”
The CJEU ruled that the aforementioned provision does not impose a strict time limit on when the complaint must be lodged, provided that the maximum period of twenty-one days from the date on which the luggage was finally made available to the recipient has not been exceeded. Therefore, the Court made a literal and final interpretation of the article, emphasising that its wording sets a limitation period but does not expressly prohibit early protest.
Consequently, this interpretation avoids unnecessary formalities and promotes greater legal certainty and effectiveness in protecting the rights of passengers affected by unjustified delays in the delivery of their luggage.
