Case C-547/26, Vueling Airlines – the bag under the seat and the bag above it
In 2014, in a case against Vueling, the Court of Justice said that hand baggage is in principle a necessary part of carrying a passenger and cannot be charged for separately. Vueling is back, with Volotea and Ryanair, and the question now is what counts as hand baggage.
Facts
The Ministerio Fiscal, the Spanish public prosecutor, has brought proceedings against Vueling Airlines, Volotea and Ryanair before the Tribunal de Instancia de A Coruña, seeking a declaration that the airlines’ conditions charging for cabin baggage are void. According to reports of the case, it relies on Article 97 of the Spanish Air Navigation Law, the provision at issue in Vueling Airlines (C‑487/12). In the wording quoted in that judgment, Article 97 requires the carrier “to carry free of charge in the cabin, as hand baggage, objects and items carried by passengers themselves”, and allows it to refuse them “only on grounds of security, weight or size of the object in relation to the characteristics of the aircraft”. The three airlines include in the fare a small item that fits under the seat in front and charge extra for a larger case placed in the overhead compartment. They rely on Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, under which air carriers “shall freely set air fares”. Separately, Spain’s Ministry of Consumer Affairs fined five low-cost airlines, the three defendants among them, about €179 million in November 2024 over several practices including charges for cabin bags; Ryanair has challenged its fine in court.
Questions Referred
1. Must Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community be interpreted as meaning that when airlines treat the carriage free of charge of a small piece of cabin luggage that can be placed under the seat in front as being included in the ticket price, they are permitted to charge extra for additional hand luggage, such as a suitcase to be placed in the overhead compartments? In that regard, does Article 22(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 preclude a national provision such as that examined in the main proceedings which requires airlines to carry cabin hand luggage free of charge, with the proviso only that they may refuse to allow such luggage on board for safety reasons, relating to the weight or size of the luggage, having regard to the characteristics of the aircraft?
2. Must Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in the light of Article 22(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008, be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to the general conditions of a contract for the carriage of passengers by air, a contractual term must be regarded as unfair where it imposes a price supplement for the carriage of additional hand luggage and where the carriage free of charge of a small piece of luggage that can be placed under the seat in front is considered to be included in the ticket price?
Sources
OJ notice C/2026/4573 (EUR‑Lex) · Case file on CURIA · Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 · Vueling Airlines, C‑487/12 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2232) · Directive 93/13/EEC
Comment
Vueling Airlines drew the line between checked baggage, which carriers may charge for under Article 22(1), and hand baggage, which “must be considered, in principle, as constituting a necessary aspect of the carriage of passengers” and cannot be made subject to a price supplement, “on condition that such hand baggage meets reasonable requirements in terms of its weight and dimensions, and complies with applicable security requirements”. The operative part of that judgment dealt only with checked baggage; the passage on hand baggage was given, in the Court’s words, “in order to give a complete response”. Its proviso is where the present case lies. The airlines read “reasonable requirements” as allowing them to define free hand baggage as a small bag under the seat; the Ministerio Fiscal reads Article 97 as requiring them to carry, free, whatever a passenger can take into the cabin within the limits of the aircraft.
The first question has two halves, and the second may matter more. If Article 22(1) precludes a national rule requiring free carriage of hand baggage limited only by safety, weight and size, the Spanish rule cannot be applied to the overhead case, whatever the answer on unfairness. The 2014 reasoning cuts both ways. It treats hand baggage as part of the service, but leaves the carrier to set “reasonable requirements” for its size, and a requirement that the bag fit under the seat is a requirement about size.
The second question approaches the same practice through consumer law. A term is unfair under Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 if, contrary to good faith, it causes a significant imbalance to the consumer’s detriment, but Article 4(2) excludes from that assessment “the adequacy of the price and remuneration” where the term is in plain and intelligible language. A surcharge for an overhead case looks like a price term, and the Court will have to say whether a supplement for something the 2014 judgment treated as part of the carriage can be reviewed for unfairness at all. The same choice is being made in the revision of the air passenger rights rules, where, according to reports, the Council would allow a paid cabin case on top of a free personal item and the European Parliament wants a cabin bag of up to 7 kg included in the fare. The Court may answer first.