In international road carriage, limitation does not depend solely on the date of the incident or delivery.
The effect of a written claim
Article 32(2) of the CMR Convention provides that a written claim suspends the limitation period until the carrier rejects it in writing and returns the documents attached to it.
In a judgment of 8 February 2023, the Court of Cassation clarified the scope of this rule.
In that case, the carrier responded to the claim by stating that the file had been passed to its insurer, its lawyer and then its management.
Preserving evidence and calculating the time limit
The Court held that these emails did not constitute rejection of the claim within the meaning of Article 32(2) of the CMR. The limitation period therefore remained suspended.
The practical implications are significant.
A response stating that the matter is “under review” or has been referred to an insurer or legal adviser should not be confused with a clear rejection. Conversely, the party relying on suspension must be able to establish the existence and receipt of its written claim.
In a case governed by the CMR, correspondence between the parties can therefore directly affect the limitation timeline.
Does the response actually amount to rejection under Article 32 of the CMR, or does limitation remain suspended?
If your matter concerns the effects of a written claim in a carriage governed by the CMR, contact the firm, which will get back to you to discuss your situation.