Full topic-specific Information Guide ↓

Goods may have been received and the transport document signed before damage becomes visible on opening the packaging. The carrier’s argument that no reservation was made at delivery matters, but it does not automatically extinguish every damage claim. The evidential consequence in Article 30 of the CMR must be distinguished from the notification condition for delay compensation.

The initial review asks three questions: does the CMR govern the carriage, was the damage apparent at delivery, and when and with what content was the carrier notified? Starting enforcement simply for the invoice value before answering those questions creates risks concerning both proof and the calculation of compensation.

First establish CMR scope and the proper parties

Article 1 applies to carriage of goods by road in vehicles for reward where the contractual takeover and delivery places are in different countries and at least one is a contracting state. Nationality or a company’s Turkish headquarters does not determine scope. Check the exceptions concerning international postal carriage, funeral consignments and furniture removal separately.

Under Article 4, absence of a CMR consignment note does not by itself invalidate the contract or establish that no contract exists. Transport orders, correspondence and delivery records become particularly important. Establish separately the roles of sender, consignee, carrier, actual carrier and insurer to identify who may claim against whom.

Why does the delivery moment matter for apparent damage?

Article 30(1) requires reservations for apparent loss or damage to be directed to the carrier no later than delivery. They must indicate the general nature of the damage. Rather than a vague statement such as “not checked”, record the observed problem, such as broken packaging, wet goods or missing packages. Preserve the relevant copies and signatures of the delivery document.

Receipt without proper joint checking by consignee and carrier, or without timely reservations, constitutes prima facie evidence that the goods were received in the condition described in the consignment note. This is not automatic extinguishment of every claim. Nevertheless, failure to establish a strong delivery record can make it harder to show later that the damage arose during carriage.

How should the seven-day period for hidden damage be understood?

For loss or damage not apparent at delivery, Article 30(1) requires written reservations within seven days of delivery, excluding Sundays and public holidays. Article 30(4) also excludes the delivery day itself. Describing this generally as “seven working days” is inaccurate: the text does not automatically exclude every Saturday.

Direct the reservation to the carrier and identify the shipment, goods and general damage. Preserve evidence of dispatch and receipt for email, written notices and delivery channels. Do not assume that notification only to the seller or your own insurer replaces the notice required to the carrier.

Article 30(2) is especially important where consignee and carrier duly checked the goods together. Evidence contradicting that check is admissible only for non-apparent loss or damage and subject to written reservations within the specified seven-day period after checking. A joint inspection report differs from a unilateral receipt signature.

For example, broken products inside apparently intact boxes require records of opening and discovery; not every discovery after delivery automatically qualifies as hidden damage. Examine opening dates, the packaging’s appearance at delivery and subsequent storage conditions together. The example guarantees no legal outcome; it identifies the evidence chain that needs to be established.

Damage, liability and compensation require separate proof

Article 17 addresses the carrier’s liability for loss or damage between takeover and delivery. Defective packaging, loading or unloading by the sender or consignee, the nature of the goods and other grounds for relief require examination under Articles 17–18. Establishing that damage exists does not automatically resolve every one of those issues.

Match loading photographs, initial carrier reservations, temperature or vehicle records, delivery reports, dated photographs and expert examination to the same shipment. Disposing of damaged goods, packaging or records without preserving an opportunity for examination can weaken proof. Document measures preventing further damage, including the reasons for and extent of any necessary intervention.

Under Article 25, damage compensation concerns diminution in value calculated by reference to Article 23’s valuation rules. The sales invoice is not automatically the compensation payable. Examine the affected portion, weight, loss in value, applicable liability limit and any declarations under Articles 24 or 26 separately; the effect of Article 29’s particular misconduct standard on limitation also requires specific facts.

Separate reservations, delay notification and limitation

The seven-day damage reservation regime is not a limitation period. Nor does it have the same legal effect as Article 30(3)’s twenty-one-day written reservation condition for delay. The text expressly attaches a different consequence to lack of notice for delay compensation; where damage and delay coexist, examine each claim separately.

Article 32 provides a general one-year limitation period, with three years for wilful misconduct or misconduct considered equivalent under the law of the court hearing the case. For damage, time runs from delivery and the initial day is excluded. A large loss or merely using the expression “gross negligence” does not automatically establish the three-year period.

A written claim under Article 32(2) may suspend limitation until written rejection by the carrier and return of the attached documents. This does not reset the clock and start a fresh year. Receipt, rejection and return of documents require proof; repeated claims concerning the same subject do not suspend time again. Examine the content and function of a delivery reservation separately from this written claim.

What framework applies to litigation or enforcement in Türkiye?

The CMR creates neither an enforcement office separate from Turkish law nor a special enforcement procedure. First determine scope, liability, calculation and limitation; collection proceedings in Türkiye operate under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. A damage claim is not a bill-of-exchange debt, and the CMR consignment note alone is neither a judgment nor a conclusively agreed compensation amount.

Subject-matter jurisdiction depends on the commercial-action rules in Articles 4–5 of the Turkish Commercial Code; the commercial court of first instance is relevant in a typical commercial carriage dispute. Monetary and compensation actions within Article 5/A also require pre-action mediation. International jurisdiction under CMR Article 31 concerns the defendant’s relevant residence or business establishment, the contracting branch, takeover or delivery place and an appropriate court agreement; territorial competence within Türkiye needs separate checking.

In ordinary enforcement without a judgment, Article 62 gives the debtor seven days from service of the payment order to object. The one-year period for an action to annul the objection under Article 67 begins with service of the objection on the creditor. Neither period replaces the CMR reservation or limitation periods. Before claiming, assemble the transport order, delivery and damage records, written claim, response and documented calculation of loss.

Sources

General information; individual documents, facts and procedures need separate review.

All guides · Türkçe · Return to article

CMR damage reservations: delivery, hidden damage and notice guide

Answer the topic-specific questions, select your records, then view your tailored preparation summary and office-branded PDF.