Introduction
On 17 September 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber) delivered its judgment in Case C-876/24, I.G.V. v Vueling Airlines SA. The case reached the Court by way of a request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Fuenlabrada, a Spanish first-instance court, and concerns a claim arising from the loss of baggage in the context of air carriage.
The judgment addresses a question of considerable practical importance for air passengers and carriers alike: which court has jurisdiction to hear a claim under the Montreal Convention when the contract of carriage was concluded online, and specifically how the concept of 'the place where the carrier has a place of business through which the contract has been entered into', as set out in Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention, is to be interpreted in that digital context.
The legal framework engaged by the case includes Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage, as well as the Montreal Convention itself. The preliminary ruling procedure allowed the Court of Justice to provide an authoritative interpretation binding on the referring court and, more broadly, on courts throughout the European Union.
Legal and factual background
The dispute before the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Fuenlabrada arose from the loss of baggage suffered by the passenger I.G.V. in the course of carriage operated by Vueling Airlines SA. The document identifies the carriage as taking place within a single Member State, a circumstance that is relevant to the application of Regulation (EC) No 2027/97.
Regulation (EC) No 2027/97, as referenced in the judgment, applies to the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air. Article 1 and Article 3(1) of that Regulation are specifically cited, indicating that the Court was called upon to consider the scope of the Regulation and the conditions under which it applies, including in the context of intra-Member State carriage.
The Montreal Convention, which governs international carriage by air and to which the European Union is a party, contains in Article 33(1) a set of jurisdictional rules that determine before which courts a claimant may bring an action. One of the permitted forums is the court of the place where the carrier has a place of business through which the contract has been entered into. The central interpretive difficulty in this case arose from the fact that the contract of carriage was concluded online, raising the question of how that jurisdictional ground is to be applied when there is no physical point of sale.
The questions referred and their significance
The Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Fuenlabrada referred questions to the Court of Justice seeking clarification on the interpretation of Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention in circumstances where the contract of carriage was entered into through an online platform rather than at a physical place of business of the carrier.
This question is significant because the jurisdictional rules of the Montreal Convention were drafted before online commerce became the predominant means by which air travel is purchased. The literal text of Article 33(1) refers to a 'place of business through which the contract has been entered into', a formulation that presupposes a degree of physical presence or at least a geographically identifiable commercial establishment.
The Court's engagement with this question reflects a broader challenge facing international private law instruments: how to apply rules conceived for a world of physical commercial transactions to an environment in which contracts are routinely formed through digital means, without any direct human interaction at a specific geographic location. The judgment of 17 September 2026 provides the Court's authoritative answer to this challenge within the framework of the Montreal Convention and Regulation (EC) No 2027/97.
Key elements of the Court's analysis
The Court of Justice, sitting as the Third Chamber, examined the interplay between Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 and the Montreal Convention. The reference to Article 1 and Article 3(1) of the Regulation in the judgment indicates that the Court considered the scope of the Regulation and its relationship to the Convention's liability and jurisdictional provisions in the specific context of carriage within a single Member State.
The citation of Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention as a central provision confirms that the Court's analysis focused on the jurisdictional dimension of the dispute rather than solely on the substantive liability rules. Article 33(1) provides a passenger with a choice of forums, and the Court was required to determine how that choice operates when the contract was concluded online.
The judgment was delivered in the context of a preliminary ruling, meaning that the Court of Justice interpreted the relevant provisions of EU law and the Montreal Convention as applicable within the EU legal order, leaving it to the referring national court to apply that interpretation to the specific facts of the case before it. This procedural structure is characteristic of the preliminary ruling mechanism under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Implications for passengers and carriers
The judgment has practical consequences for passengers who purchase air tickets online and subsequently suffer loss of or damage to their baggage. The interpretation of Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention provided by the Court of Justice will guide national courts across the European Union in determining whether they have jurisdiction to hear such claims, particularly where the passenger seeks to bring proceedings before a court in the place where the online contract was concluded or where the carrier's digital commercial presence is located.
For air carriers such as Vueling Airlines SA, the judgment clarifies the extent to which they may be subject to proceedings in courts of Member States other than those in which they maintain a traditional physical place of business. The online sale of tickets, which is now the standard commercial practice in the aviation sector, has implications for the geographic spread of potential litigation that carriers must take into account.
The case also illustrates the relevance of Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 to intra-Member State carriage, confirming that the regulatory framework governing air carrier liability is not confined to international routes but extends, in the circumstances addressed by the Regulation, to domestic flights within a single Member State. Passengers on such routes are therefore entitled to rely on the protections afforded by the Regulation and the Montreal Convention as applicable within the EU legal order.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 17 September 2026 in Case C-876/24, I.G.V. v Vueling Airlines SA, represents an important contribution to the interpretation of the jurisdictional rules of the Montreal Convention in the digital age. By addressing the question of how Article 33(1) of the Convention applies when a contract of carriage is concluded online, the Court has provided guidance that will assist national courts throughout the European Union in handling baggage loss claims arising from air travel.
The case demonstrates the continuing relevance of the preliminary ruling mechanism as a means of ensuring the uniform interpretation of EU law and of international conventions forming part of the EU legal order. It also underscores the importance of Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 as the legislative instrument through which the Montreal Convention's liability regime is given effect within the European Union, including in the context of carriage within a single Member State.
Passengers, carriers, and legal practitioners operating in the field of aviation law should be aware of this judgment and its implications for the determination of jurisdiction in claims arising from the loss of baggage where the underlying contract of carriage was entered into through online means. The full text of the judgment is available on the EUR-Lex platform under CELEX reference 62024CJ0876.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications