{"id":3010,"date":"2026-11-06T10:18:26","date_gmt":"2026-11-06T09:18:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/example.invalid\/?p=3010"},"modified":"2026-11-13T00:12:44","modified_gmt":"2026-11-12T23:12:44","slug":"cmr-reclamation-ecrite-suspension-prescription-cassation-2023","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abdennour-avocat.fr\/en\/cmr-reclamation-ecrite-suspension-prescription-cassation-2023\/","title":{"rendered":"CMR: when does a written claim suspend the limitation period?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In international road carriage, limitation does not depend solely on the date of the incident or delivery.<\/p>\n

The effect of a written claim<\/h2>\n

Article 32(2) of the CMR Convention<\/a> provides that a written claim suspends the limitation period until the carrier rejects it in writing and returns the documents attached to it.<\/p>\n

In a judgment of 8 February 2023<\/a>, the Court of Cassation clarified the scope of this rule.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Preserving evidence and calculating the time limit<\/h2>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The practical implications are significant.<\/p>\n

A response stating that the matter is \u201cunder review\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

In a case governed by the CMR, correspondence between the parties can therefore directly affect the limitation timeline<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Does the response actually amount to rejection under Article 32 of the CMR, or does limitation remain suspended?<\/strong><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A simple reply from the carrier stating that the case has been referred to its insurer does not necessarily constitute a rejection that restarts the limitation period.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":3077,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3010","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-droit-des-transports"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/abdennour-avocat.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3010","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/abdennour-avocat.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/abdennour-avocat.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abdennour-avocat.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abdennour-avocat.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3010"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/abdennour-avocat.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3010\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3245,"href":"https:\/\/abdennour-avocat.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3010\/revisions\/3245"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abdennour-avocat.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3077"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/abdennour-avocat.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3010"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abdennour-avocat.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3010"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abdennour-avocat.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3010"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}