Legal Rights of Injured Passengers and Families of Victims in the AZAL Plane Crash in Kazakhstan

On December 25, 2024, a tragic aviation accident occurred near the city of Aktau, Kazakhstan. An Embraer E190 aircraft, operated by the state-owned airline Azerbaijan Airlines (AZAL), crashed while operating international passenger flight No. 8243 on the Baku–Grozny route. The aircraft failed to reach its destination and went down en route.

As a result of the crash, several passengers lost their lives, while others survived with serious physical injuries and psychological trauma. Among those on board were citizens of Russia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan. The crash quickly gained international attention and sparked significant public reaction across multiple countries.

Beyond the human tragedy, the victims and the families of those who perished are now faced with urgent legal questions:

• Who bears legal responsibility for the crash?
• In what countries and through which procedures can compensation be claimed?
• Which courts have jurisdiction to hear such cases?
• What steps must be taken to secure fair compensation?

Air Carrier Liability: Key Rules Under International and Domestic Law

An aircraft is considered a source of increased danger, which means that the owner or operator—in this case, Azerbaijan Airlines (AZAL)—bears heightened legal responsibility. This principle implies that damages caused by an aviation incident must be compensated, regardless of any fault on the part of passengers or third parties.

Depending on whether the flight is domestic or international, different legal frameworks apply. In the case of Flight No. 8243, which operated between two countries (Azerbaijan and Russia) and crossed through Kazakhstan, the flight qualifies as an international carriage. As such, it falls under the scope of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, signed in Montreal on May 28, 1999—commonly referred to as the Montreal Convention of 1999.

This international treaty governs the liability of air carriers for passenger death or injury, flight delays, and the loss or damage of baggage. It sets out the principles for calculating compensation and grants both passengers and their families the right to seek legal redress in court. The Convention is enforced in most countries, including Azerbaijan, Russia, and Kazakhstan.

The Montreal Convention: Core Principles of Airline Liability

In the context of the AZAL Flight 8243 crash in Kazakhstan in December 2024, the Montreal Convention applies directly, as the flight was classified as international. This treaty guarantees the rights of injured passengers and the families of those who died to claim compensation from the airline—regardless of whether the airline was at fault.

The Convention establishes a two-tier liability system for air carriers in cases of passenger death or bodily injury:

1. Strict Liability of the Air Carrier – up to 128,821 SDR

The airline is required to pay compensation even if no direct operational fault occurred. If a passenger dies or suffers bodily injury during the flight, while boarding, or during disembarkation, liability arises automatically.

The compensation limit is set at 128,821 Special Drawing Rights (SDR)—a monetary unit used by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). As of 2025, this amount is roughly equivalent to USD 170,000, depending on the exchange rate. This threshold is adjusted annually to reflect inflation and currency fluctuations.

This model is designed to protect the rights of passengers and their families, as there is no need to prove fault by the airline—only the occurrence of harm during the course of air transportation.

2. Airline Liability Beyond the 128,821 SDR Limit

If the actual damages exceed the SDR limit, the airline may be held fully liable for the total amount, unless it can prove one of the following:

• The damage did not result from the airline’s own fault or the fault of its employees, contractors, or subcontractors (e.g., maintenance providers or crew);
• The incident was caused solely by third-party actions that could not have been foreseen or prevented, even with all reasonable safety measures—such as terrorist acts, armed conflict, missile strikes, drone attacks, or other external threats.

In practical terms, the airline must demonstrate that it:

• Had complete and timely knowledge of any relevant threats;
• Took all reasonable steps to prevent the incident;
• Could not have changed the flight path, cancelled the flight, or warned passengers in time.

If it is determined that the carrier failed to exercise due care when planning the route, ignored ICAO advisories, NOTAMs, or other safety alerts, it will be held fully liable for all consequences, including compensation beyond the set limit.

Burden of Proof Rests with the Airline

One of the most important provisions of the Montreal Convention is that when compensation exceeding 128,821 SDR is sought, the burden of proof shifts to the airline. The carrier must prove it was not at fault for the harm caused. If the airline fails to provide convincing evidence, the court may order full compensation for the damages suffered.

With proper legal representation, surviving passengers and families of the deceased can often obtain compensation far beyond the base limit—particularly if any of the following are proven:

• Failure to assess and mitigate route-specific risks;
• Ignoring official warnings about aerial threats;
• Inadequate internal safety measures and oversight.

Where Can a Lawsuit Be Filed?

Under Article 33 of the Montreal Convention (1999), claimants have the right to choose from five jurisdictions when filing a lawsuit. This flexibility allows victims and families to seek justice in a legal system most favorable to their interests, especially in terms of the amount and type of compensation available.

Claims may be filed in any of the following jurisdictions:

1. The country of the passenger’s permanent residence
   For example, if the victim was a citizen or resident of Kazakhstan, Russia, or Azerbaijan, their family may file a claim in their home country.
2. The place of departure
   For Flight AZAL 8243, this was Baku, Azerbaijan. Since the flight originated there, Azerbaijani courts have jurisdiction.
3. The destination of the flight
   The final destination was Grozny, Russia, allowing claims to be filed in Russian courts.
4. The country where the airline is registered
   Azerbaijan Airlines (AZAL) is registered in Azerbaijan, making its home jurisdiction a valid venue for litigation.
5. The country where the contract of carriage was concluded via an agent
   If the ticket was purchased through a travel or airline agent based in Kazakhstan or Russia, this could also form a legal basis for jurisdiction there.

Choosing Jurisdiction: A Strategic Legal Decision

The choice of jurisdiction is not just a geographic consideration—it is a strategic legal decision. Compensation awards can vary significantly depending on the applicable national laws and judicial practices. Some countries offer broader recognition of non-material damages such as emotional distress or loss of a breadwinner, while others apply more formal or limited frameworks.

Key factors in selecting jurisdiction include:

• The potential compensation amount;
• The recognition or limitation of claims for moral damages;
• The speed of judicial proceedings;
• Litigation costs;
• Legal frameworks for loss of financial support;
• Rules for calculating medical costs and lost earnings;
• Indexation of awards and inflation adjustments;
• Judicial approaches to assessing non-economic harm.

What Compensation Can Victims and Families Claim?

In cases of death or serious injury caused by an international aviation disaster, passengers and their families are entitled to claim compensation from the airline. These rights are governed by the 1999 Montreal Convention and the substantive laws of the country where the claim is filed.

In the case of the AZAL Flight 8243 crash on December 25, 2024, both international and national laws apply, enabling victims and families to pursue both standard and extended compensation.

Compensation Within the Montreal Convention Limit

As noted earlier, the Montreal Convention imposes strict (no-fault) liability on the airline for damages up to 128,821 SDR—approximately USD 170,000 per passenger. These payments apply:

• To the immediate relatives of a deceased passenger;
• To the passenger directly, if they survived with bodily injuries;
• Regardless of the airline’s fault—harm sustained during flight, boarding, or disembarkation is sufficient.

Compensation Beyond the Limit: Determined by National Law

If the damages exceed the Montreal Convention limit, additional compensation may be claimed under the national substantive law of the jurisdiction where the case is heard.

This means that the court will apply:

• Laws governing compensation for personal injury, death, and moral damage;
• Relevant domestic case law and precedents.

Therefore, compensation amounts may vary significantly based on whether the claim is brought in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, or Russia.

Types of Compensation Available Beyond the Montreal Limit

For families of deceased passengers:

• Moral damages for the loss of a loved one (a key component under Russian and Kazakh law);
• Loss of financial support: if the deceased supported dependents (e.g., spouse, children, elderly parents), they may be entitled to periodic payments or a lump sum;
• Funeral and burial costs, including transportation of remains and memorial expenses;
• Reimbursement for personal belongings lost in the crash;
• Legal fees and attorney’s costs related to pursuing a claim.

For surviving passengers:

• Compensation for bodily injury and harm to health;
• Medical expenses, both incurred and future (e.g., surgeries, rehabilitation, medications, prosthetics);
• Lost income, if injuries resulted in temporary or permanent loss of work capacity;
• Moral damages, which are recognized in many jurisdictions and can be substantial.

Insurers and Compensation: How to Navigate the Process Effectively

Nearly every airline operating international flights is required to carry liability insurance for passengers in accordance with international regulations. This insurance typically covers:

• Compensation required under the 1999 Montreal Convention;
• Additional legal claims, including those brought in court;
• Payouts for bodily injury, passenger death, lost baggage, and other consequences of an aviation incident.

This means that in the event of an aviation disaster—such as the AZAL Flight 8243 crash in December 2024—the financial burden of compensating victims and families usually falls on the airline’s insurer, not the airline itself.

However, in practice, securing insurance compensation is rarely a quick, transparent, or fair process. Victims and their families often face significant challenges that must be understood from the outset.

Key Considerations When Dealing with an Insurance Company

1. Compensation Offers Are Often Undervalued
   Insurance companies are primarily motivated by minimizing losses—not by restoring justice. Initial offers are typically far lower than what victims are legally entitled to. In many cases, insurers attempt to settle for no more than 128,821 SDR (the Montreal Convention limit), even when actual damages are much higher.
2. Settlement Agreements Often Include Waivers of Further Claims
   One common tactic used by insurers is to offer a lump-sum settlement in exchange for the victim—or their family—agreeing not to pursue further legal action. These agreements are frequently presented under stress or emotional pressure, and without legal review. Signing such a waiver may permanently forfeit the right to file a full legal claim.

DTK Partners’ Experience: Protecting Victims and Families

The tragedy of AZAL Flight 8243, which resulted in multiple passenger fatalities and severe injuries, demands not only empathy but also a professional and strategic legal response. In such situations, victims and families often have only one real chance to obtain fair compensation. It is therefore critical to make the right decisions early on—especially regarding legal strategy and the choice of legal representation.

DTK Partners is already representing several families from Kazakhstan who lost loved ones in this crash. Our team began working on these cases immediately after the incident—collecting evidence, developing a legal strategy, and preparing to file claims across multiple jurisdictions.

Our law firm has unique and proven experience in representing victims of aviation accidents, both in Russia and internationally. Since 2006, we have handled major aviation cases, representing the interests of families and survivors in some of the most high-profile air disasters of recent decades.

Over the years, DTK Partners has filed lawsuits in foreign jurisdictions, including the European Union, the United States, and the Middle East, and has successfully secured the highest possible compensation for our clients under both international conventions and national laws.

Conclusion

The crash of AZAL Flight 8243 in Kazakhstan in December 2024 is not only a human tragedy that resulted in loss of life and serious injuries—it is also a critical test for the international legal framework governing aviation. In such cases, the path to justice depends not only on sympathy but on the legal mechanisms available to victims and families.

The Montreal Convention of 1999 and the evolving body of case law offer a clear and enforceable route to compensation—including claims that exceed the standard limit, where evidence shows that the airline failed to exercise due care or ignored foreseeable risks.

Victims and the families of those who died are entitled to full, fair, and lawful compensation for the harm suffered. The airline bears ultimate responsibility for flight safety, and attempts to avoid liability—whether legal or moral—are indefensible. But realizing these rights requires skilled legal guidance and a carefully planned approach.

If you or someone you know has been affected by this tragedy, contact the legal team at DTK Partners. We represent clients in the most complex aviation cases involving international carrier liability and fight to ensure that justice is not only promised—but delivered.