+(,121/,1(

Citation: 5 Unif. L. Rev. n.s. 380 2000

Content downloaded/printed from

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)
Tue Sep 2 11:09:28 2014
-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance
of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license
agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from
uncorrected OCR text.
-- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope
of your HeinOnline license, please use:
https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do?
&operation=go&searchType=0
&lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=1124-3694

Case Law Summaries - Carriage by Road / Carriage by Rail

of goods" within the meaning of Article 1(1) CMR, irrespective of whether German transport law
applies or not. In the traditional German view, such forwarding contracts only amounted to
carriage contracts for the purposes of CMR where the applicable national law provided thus.
However, the Munich Court, and now the Hamm Court too, expressly departed from that
national point of view and turned to a purely autonomous construction of CMR. In their

reasoning, the term "contract for the carriage of goods" in Article 1(1) must be construed from
the perspective of the Convention itself and without regard to terminology used in any national
legislation. Uniform application of international Conventions, the Court argued, generally

mandates that method of construction.

Autonomous interpretation means taking a comparative approach, i.e. taking into account
the practice and interpretation of other States Parties to the Convention. Since forwarders acting
on fixed charges are considered as carriers under the CMR in the United Kingdom, Belgium and
Austria as well as in Germany, the Court concluded that the equivalence between such
forwarders and carriers sprang directly from the Convention.
Therefore, as of now, at least two German appellate courts will apply CMR to forwarding
contracts at fixed charges, regardless of any qualification in the applicable national law.
Transportrecht 2000, 29.
Summary kindly supplied by Dr Christian Jung.

GENEVA CONV. 1956 (CMR) -

GERMANY

Article 29 CMR; Article 25 of the Warsaw Convention (1929); Article 58(I)(c) of the
Uniform Rules CIM as amended by the 1990 Protocol.
The reader is invited to refer to the decisions Oberlandesgericht Minchen (2 ndinst. - final),
7.V.1999 - (23 U 6113/98) and Landgericht Dresden, 13.VI.1999 - 46 0 960/98,
summarised supra p. 364 and infra, p. 380.

COTIF 1980 - UNIFORM RULES CONCERNING THE CONTRACT FOR

INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY RAIL (CIM)

CIM 1980 - GERMANY

Articles 53, 54(3)(b)-2 and (4), 58(1)(c) and (3) of the Uniform Rules as amended by the
1990 Protocol.
LANDGERICHT DRESDEN, 13.VI.1999 - 46 0 960/98.
A prototype railway carriage manufactured by DWA in Germany (consignor) was sent to
Soci~t6 V in Velim (Czech Republic) (consignee) by rail for technical tests; the carriage formed

380

Unif. L. Rev. 2000-2

R6sum6s de jurisprudence - Transport routier / Transport ferroviaire

transport de marchandises" au sens de 'article 1(1) de laCMR, ind6pendamment que le droit

allemand des transports s'applique ou non. Du point de vue traditionnel allemand, de tels
contrats de commission de transport ne pouvaient 8tre consid6r6s comme des contrats de
transport aux fins de la CMR que lorsque le droit national applicable en pr6voyait ainsi.
Toutefois, laCour de Munich, et maintenant laCour de Hamm s'6cartent express6ment de cette
conception et consacrent une ligne d'interpr~tation purement autonome de la CMR. Dans leur
argumentation, les termes "contrat de transport de marchandises" de I'article 1(1) doivent 6tre
interpr6t6s au regard de laConvention m~me et ind6pendamment de laterminologie utilis6e
dans les l6gislations nationales. L'application uniforme des Conventions internationales, selon la
Cour, impose dans le principe une telle m6thode d'interpr6tation.
Une interpr6tation autonome implique une d6marche comparative, c'est-A-dire de prendre
en consid6ration ]a pratique et l'interpr6tation des autres Etats parties A laConvention. Etant
donn6 que les commissionnaires de transport A prix pr66tabli sont consid6r6s comme des
transporteurs en vertu de laCMR au Royaume-Uni, en Belgique et en Autriche de m6me qu'en
Allemagne, laCour a conclu que 1'6quivalence entre de tels commissionnaires et transporteurs
d6rivait directement de la Convention.
En cons6quence, d6sormais au moins deux juridictions d'appel allemandes appliqueront
laCMR A des contrats de commission de transport A prix pr66tabli, ind6pendamment de la
qualification qui leur est donn6e par le droit national applicable.
Transportrecht 2000, 29.
Sommaire aimablement communiqu6 par Dr Christian Jung.

CONVENTION DE GENEVE 1956 (CMR) - ALLEMAGNE

Article 29 CMR; Article 25 de /a Convention de Varsovie (1929); Article 58(1)(c) des RU
CIM amend6es par le Protocole de 1990..
Le lecteur est invit6 A se reporter aux arrts Oberlandesgericht Minchen (2 "' instance final), 7.V.1999 - (23 U 6113/98) et Landgericht Dresden, 13.V1.1999 - 46 0 960/98,
r6sum6s supra, p. 365 et infra, p. 381.

COTIF 1980 - REGLES UNIFORMES CONCERNANT LE CONTRAT DE TRANSPORT

INTERNATIONAL FERROVIAIRE DES MARCHANDISES (CIM)
CIM 1980 -

ALLEMAGNE

Articles 53, 54(3)(b)-2 et (4), 58(1)(c) et (3) des RU CIM amend6es par le Protocole de 1990.
LANDGERICHT DRESDEN, 13.VI.1999 -46 0 960/98.
Un prototype de voiture ferroviaire, fabriqu6e par la Socit6 DWA en Allemagne
(exp6ditrice), a 6t6 exp~di6e A laSocit6 V. A Velim (R6publique tch~que) (destinataire) par

Rev. dr. unif. 2000-2

Case Law Summaries - Carriage by Rail

part of the convoy and moved on its own wheels. Consignee, upon discovering serious damage
which rendered the scheduled tests impossible, returned the carriage to Germany. Consignor
informed the railways of the damage in a first letter, followed by a second letter stating the cost
of repairs.
Plaintiff, in its capacity of principal transport insurer, brought an action for damages
against the railways on the basis of the rights assigned to it by DWA. Defendant, on the one
hand, contested plaintiff's right to bring an action and, on the other hand, invoked the limitation
of actions.
(1) LIABILITY OF RAILWAYS - Action brought by the assignee of consignor's rights under
CIM - Conditions.
The court declared the action admissible, pointing out that plaintiff, as the principal
insurer under the commercial usages of the Hamburg Rules, was entitled to bring an action
in its own name to assert the rights of the insurance consortium. Plaintiff's being an assignee
did not preclude its bringing an action under the Uniform Rules. The court held that plaintiff
had proved that consignee had refused the consignment; indeed, acceptance in accordance
with Article 54(3)(b)-2 of the Uniform Rules implies that consignee not only effectively
accepts the goods but that it also declares delivery to be in compliance with the terms of the
contract. Merely taking possession of the goods with a view to inspecting them is not
sufficient. As a consequence, given consignee's refusal of the goods, consignor was entitled
to bring an action without being required to produce a duplicate of the consignment note
(Article 54(4) CIM).
(2) LIABILITY OF RAILWAYS - Limitation of actions - Burden of proof of carrier's
misconduct - "Secondary burden in respect of alleged facts".
The court nevertheless judged the claim ill-founded and accepted the limitation defence
raised by defendant. The court held that since plaintiff alleged the damage to have been caused
by qualified negligence on the part of the railways, it must bear the burden of proof and the
burden in respect of the alleged facts. The court did not apply the concept of 'secondary burden
in respect of alleged facts developed by German case law in recent years (in respect of Article
29 CMR and Article 25 of the Warsaw Convention), according to which the carrier must give a
detailed account of the organisation of its activity, insofa'r as possible and to the extent that it
may reasonably be required to do so. The court concluded that in the instant case, the (German)
railways could not be expected to explain a sequence of events attributable to a foreign railway
company (the Czech railways). The damage had manifestly occurred in the course of
marshalling operations. Such damage is not as a rule due to an act done with intent to cause
such loss or damage or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss or damage will probably
result, so that qualified negligence, which would have resulted in a two-year limitation period
(Article 58(1)(c) CIM), had not been proved. As a consequence, in the instant case, the limitation
period expired after one year.
(3) LIABILITY OF RAILWAYS - Limitation of action - Claim - Necessary supporting
documents - Suspension of limitation period by a non-conforming claim (no).
Plaintiff having invoked the suspension of the limitation period by virtue of the claim, the
court held that the two letters addressed by consignor to the railways did not constitute a claim
in conformity with Article 53 CIM, which requires that the claim be presented together with the

382

Unif. L. Rev. 2000-2

R6sumrs de jurisprudence - Transport routier / Transport ferroviaire

chemin de fer pour y faire I'objet de contr6les techniques; la voiture a fait partie de la
composition du train et a roul sur ses propres roues. Ayant dcouvert des d~gAts importants qui
ont rendu impossibles les contr6les pr~vus, le destinataire a r~exp6di6 ]a voiture en Allemagne.
L'exp~ditrice a inform6 le chemin de fer dans une premiere lettre du dommage survenu, et dans
une deuxi~me lettre du montant des frais de r~paration de ]a voiture.
En sa qualit6 de soci~t6 d'assurance transport, reconnue en tant qu'assureur principal, la
demanderesse a intent6 une action judiciaire en dommages et int~rats contre le chemin de fer.
Elle a fond6 son action sur le droit qui lui a t c~d6 par la Socit6 DWA.
Le dsfendeur a, d'une part, contest6 le droit de la demanderesse d'exercer I'action et,
d'autre part, invoqu6 la prescription de 'action.
(1) RESPONSABILITE DU CHEMIN DE FER - Action du cessionnaire des droits de
I'exp~diteuren vertu de la CIM - Conditions.
Le tribunal a dclar6 la demande recevable, relevant que la demanderesse, en tant
qu'assureur principal au sens des usages commerciaux de Hambourg, 6tait habilitee A faire
valoir en justice en son propre nom les droits du consortium des assureurs. Le fait que la
demanderesse soit cessionnaire n'exclut pas la possibilit6 de faire valoir une pr~tention fond~e
sur les RU CIM. Le tribunal a estim6 que la demanderesse avait prouv6 que le destinataire avait
refus6 l'envoi ; en effet, I'acceptation au sens de 'article 54(3)(b)-2 des RU CIM presuppose que
le destinataire n'ait pas simplement accept6 effectivement la marchandise mais encore qu'il ait
reconnu que la livraison 6tait pour 'essentiel conforme au contrat. Une simple prise de
possession de la marchandise en vue de 'inspecter ne suffit pas. Compte tenu donc du refus de
l'envoi par le destinataire, I'exp~ditrice 6tait en droit d'exercer une action sans 6tre tenue de
produire le duplicata de la lettre de voiture (article 54(4) CIM).
(2) RESPONSABILITE DU CHEMIN DE FER - Prescription de I'action - Charge de /a
preuve de la faute du transporteur - "Fardeausecondaire des faits all6gbi6s".
Toutefois, le tribunal a jug6 la demande mal fond6e, et a accueilli I'exception de prescription
soulev6e par le d6fendeur. Le tribunal a estim6 que ]a demanderesse ayant pr6tendu que le sinistre
6tait dO A [a faute caract6ris6e du chemin de fer, c'6tait Aelle de supporter le fardeau de la preuve
et des faits all6gu6s. II n'a pas appliqu6 la notion de "fardeau secondaire des faits all6gu6s"
d6velopp6e par la jurisprudence allemande ces dernires ann6es (relativement A 'article 29 de la
CMR et A I'article 25 de la Convention de Varsovie) selon laquelle le transporteur est tenu de
pr6senter les circonstances d6taill6es relevant du domaine de son exploitation, dans la mesure oO
cela s'av~re possible et lorsqu'on peut raisonnablement le lui demander. Le tribunal a conclu en
I'espce que le chemin de fer (allemand) ne pouvait tre tenu de pr6senter le d6roulement des faits
imputables A une compagnie ferroviaire 6trang~re (chemins de fer tch~ques). Les dommages ont
6 manifestement dus A un accident intervenu lors de manceuvres de triage. De tels dommages ne
r6sultent en r~gle g~n6rale pas d'un acte commis soit avec 'intention de provoquer un tel
dommage, soit t6m6rairement et avec conscience qu'un tel dommage en r6sultera probablement,
de sorte que faute caract6ris6e qui aurait eu pour cons6quence un d6lai de prescription de deux
ans (article 58(1)(c) CIM) n'a pas W prouv6e. L'action a 6t6 ainsi prescrite A 'expiration d'un an.
(3) RESPONSABILITE DU CHEMIN DE FER - Prescription de I'action - R6clamation Pikes justificatives n6cessaires - Suspension de la prescription par une r6clamation
irr6gulire (non).
Le demandeur ayant invoqu6 que la prescription 6tait suspendue par la r6clamation, le
tribunal a estim6 que les deux lettres de I'exp6ditrice adress6es au chemin de fer ne constituaient pas une r6clamation satisfaisant aux conditions de 'article 53 des RU CIM, lequel

Rev. dr. unif. 2000-2

383

Case Law Summaries - Carriage by Rail / Multimodal Transport

necessary supporting documents (Article 58(3) CIM). The court agreed with defendant that what

was intended by "necessary supporting documents" under Article 58(3) of the Uniform Rules
was the documents mentioned in the Additional Uniform Rules (DCU) in respect of this Article
drawn up by the railways in the framework of the International Rail Transport Committee (CIT).
In the instant case, in accordance with DCU 3 and 4, this means those documents capable of
demonstrating the value of the goods and a document attesting to the transfer of rights.
Likewise, defendant was not required to reject the non-conforming claim.
Transportrecht (1999) 397; Bulletin des transports internationaux ferroviaires, 6/1999, 510.
Summary kindly supplied by Ms Eva Hammerschmiedovi (Secretariat of the Intergovernmental
Organisation for International Railway Transport (OTIF) (Berne, Switzerland)).

AGREEMENT ON MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT OF GOODS

IN MERCOSUR (Ouro Preto 1994)
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT (MERCOSUR) - URUGUAY
Uruguayan Decree 299/95 approving the Agreement on Multimodal Transport of Goods
in MERCOSUR as a partial scope Agreement in the framework of ALADI (null and void).
TRIBUNAL DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, Decision N0 1016 - 9.XI.1998 "Alianca da Bahia c. Estado".
URUGUAYAN DECREE 299/95 approving the Agreement on Multimodal Transport of
Goods in MERCOSUR as a partial scope Agreement in the framework of ALADI - Ratification of Treaties - Legal rules implementing international Conventions in MERCOSUR Impossibility of amending prior legal rules or Treaties or of legislating by means of partial
scope Agreements under ALADI - Modifications to the liability regime and to the amounts
of carrier's liability contrary to the general principle of full compensation of damage
implicitly enshrined in the Constitution - Decree unconstitutional, null and void.
On 9 November 1998, the Tribunal de lo Contencioso Administrativo (TCA) of Uruguay
handed down a decision rendering void with general and absolute effects "Decree 299/95
"which approved as a Partial Scope Agreement in the framework of ALADI the Agreement on
Multimodal Transport of Goods in MERCOSUR, signed together with the other Ouro Preto
Treaties of 15 December 1994."
The importance of this decision transcends the case at hand, implying, as it does, a
revision of the procedures for the implementation of MERCOSUR legal rules. It is also a warning
not to abuse the option of approving treaties by inter-governmental agreements such as those
provided for by ALADI as a shortcut to amending the domestic and international rules in force
without involving parliament. This infringes the reserved area of Parliamentary legislative
prerogative granted by the Constitution, which has not been delegated to MERCOSUR'S intergovernmental organs. MERCOSUR in fact has no supranational legislative organ.
The use of partial scope agreements under ALADI for fast-track implementation of Treaties
has its origin in the 1980 Montevideo Treaty (approved in Uruguay by Decree Law 15.071),

384

Unif. L. Rev. 2000-2