CMR limitation for cargo damage: one-year period, misconduct and starting point

In international road carriage, the enforceability of a claim depends not only on the damage but also on calculating the correct limitation period. Article 32 CMR generally provides a one-year period. A longer period applies in cases of wilful misconduct or conduct treated as equivalent to wilful misconduct under the law of the court seised.

The starting point is particularly important. For damage, partial loss or delay, Article 32 CMR links the period to delivery. Total loss and other claims have their own starting points. A written claim also affects the running of time only if specific requirements are met.

This article deals exclusively with limitation periods and their calculation under Article 32 CMR. Liability limits, reservations at delivery, delivery-time disputes and the evidence of a particular cargo damage are outside this article’s scope.

Article 32(1) CMR covers claims arising from a carriage to which the Convention applies. The ordinary limitation period is one year. This is a specific rule of international carriage law and should not simply be replaced with a general domestic period.

The one-year period presupposes that the CMR applies to the particular carriage. The departure and destination places, the companies involved, the carriage contract and the connection with international road carriage should therefore be recorded first. The overview of the CMR and transport contract explains the framework.

The claim must then be placed in one of the groups in Article 32(1) CMR. Damage, partial loss and delay are treated differently from total loss and another claim. Calling a matter simply a “cargo damage” is therefore not enough to calculate the period.

The basic rule is one year. Article 32(1) CMR extends the period to three years where there is wilful misconduct or conduct treated as equivalent to wilful misconduct under the law of the court seised. The longer period therefore cannot be assumed merely from a serious breach or from an allegation.

Whether conduct is equivalent depends on the applicable law and the established facts. Serious negligence should not automatically be treated as wilful misconduct. The file should contain a traceable chronology of the acts, warnings, knowledge and responses of the persons involved.

The longer period does not change the starting point. The starting point is first determined under Article 32(1)(a) to (c) CMR. Only then can the one-year period or, exceptionally, the three-year period be applied.

For partial loss, damage or delay, the period begins on the date of delivery. The delivery date should therefore be established from a receipt, electronic status, consignment note or other reliable record. The day on which limitation begins is not included in the calculation.

For total loss, the period begins on the thirtieth day after the agreed delivery period expired. If no delivery period was agreed, Article 32(1)(b) CMR refers to the sixtieth day after the carrier took over the goods. This avoids using a delivery date that never occurred.

For all other cases, the period begins when three months have elapsed after the carriage contract was concluded. This residual category requires careful examination of the claim. It should not be chosen merely because delivery records are incomplete.

In practice, delivery, discovery of damage, a complaint and invoicing are easily confused. For a claim concerning damage or partial loss, Article 32 CMR nevertheless refers to delivery. The date of a later internal inspection or an invoice does not replace that starting point.

Where a shipment was delivered in several parts, the file should show when each relevant part was handed over. This also matters where only some goods are missing or damaged. The guidance on preserving evidence after cargo damage helps organise the chronology, but it does not itself determine limitation.

For the calculation, record the starting date expressly and note that Article 32(1) CMR excludes that day from the calculation. If the handover is disputed, the consignment note, delivery receipt, digital delivery data and communications with the carrier should be examined together.

Under Article 32(2) CMR, limitation is suspended by a written claim until the day on which the carrier rejects it in writing and returns the attached documents. If the claim is partly accepted, time continues only for the disputed part. A further claim concerning the same matter does not suspend limitation again.

In 7 Ob 123/23y of 24 January 2024, the Austrian Supreme Court stressed that a complaint under Article 32(2) CMR must make the carrier’s responsibility for the cargo damage unmistakably clear. The carrier must be able to understand that it is being held liable and must receive the documents needed to assess the complaint.

An internal damage list or a message sent only to an expert of the transport insurer will therefore not necessarily qualify. Keep the text sent, the attached documents, the addressee, the method of transmission and proof of receipt. The freight claim limitation check can help organise the first set of dates and documents.

To assess the starting point, bring together the carriage contract, order, consignment note, agreed delivery period and delivery or loss reports. For damage or partial loss, add photographs, condition reports and the identification of the affected packages. These documents do not automatically prove the claim, but they make the timing reviewable.

For a written claim, the file should show the claim, the shipment, the alleged damage, the demand that the carrier accept responsibility and the relevant documents. Preserve the carrier’s response and evidence of when the statement and its attachments were received.

Under Article 32(3) CMR, the law of the court seised governs suspension and interruption, without prejudice to Article 32(2). The calculation should therefore not be based on a calendar date alone. If several shipments or claim items are involved, each must be assessed separately.

Using the invoice date as the starting point: For damage and partial loss, delivery is generally the relevant starting point.

Treating every serious negligence case as wilful misconduct: Three years requires wilful misconduct or equivalent conduct under the law of the court seised.

Including the starting day: Article 32(1) CMR excludes that day from the calculation.

Calling an internal note a written claim: The statement must reach the carrier and clearly show that it is being held responsible.

Counting every later complaint as a new suspension: A further complaint concerning the same claim does not suspend the period again.

Using one period for every shipment: Delivery, loss and the complaint must be assigned to each shipment and claim item.

For each claim item, prepare a short timeline. Record conclusion of the carriage contract, takeover, agreed delivery period, delivery or loss, complaint, response and return of documents together with the supporting records.

Then assign the claim to one of the groups in Article 32(1) CMR. Check whether the ordinary one-year period or the exceptional three-year period may apply. For a written claim, separately verify its content, addressee, receipt and attachments.

If a claim has already been rejected, several shipments are involved or the starting point is unclear, the complete transport file should be reviewed promptly. This allows the next steps to be based on the actual dates and the particular claim.

Receive new articles and legal updates from the firm with BRANDaktuelle Rechtsnews. Subscribe to the newsletter.