Who should receive a CMR damage claim when carriage is subcontracted?

Full topic-specific Information Guide ↓

You booked carriage with company A; company B’s vehicle delivered the goods, and damage emerged at delivery. A says it did not perform the transport; B says it has no contract with you. Neither statement alone determines the proper respondent. First investigate who undertook which obligations, who accepted the goods and consignment note, and when damage occurred. A letter directed to the wrong company must not support an assumption that time has been protected against the others.

1. First establish CMR applicability and the person entitled to claim

Article 1 CMR concerns carriage of goods by road for reward where contractual taking-over and designated delivery places lie in different countries, at least one of which is a contracting country. A foreign vehicle registration is insufficient. Whether a domestic operation forms part of international carriage or is independent must also be assessed against the whole contract. Multimodal carriage and exclusions require separate consideration; this article does not apply CMR automatically to every movement.

The focus here is a cargo interest’s physical-damage claim. Sender, consignee, owner and insurer are different capacities; entitlement and the connection to the loss must be documented. Recovery by a carrier that paid compensation against another carrier is a separate relationship with its own conditions. An insurer’s payment does not automatically align every contract and time-period trigger. Where policy, payment, subrogation or assignment is disputed, add a separate entitlement review to this preparation.

2. A contractual carrier does not escape responsibility merely by using another vehicle

Article 3 CMR attributes to the carrier the acts and omissions, within their functions, of persons used to perform carriage as if they were its own. A company that undertook carriage therefore does not dispose of the file by saying that the vehicle belonged to someone else. Examine the booking, who undertook carriage in its own name, acceptance correspondence and invoicing/payment together. Nevertheless, organising an operation does not invariably make a company a contractual carrier; investigate the substance of any mere-intermediary defence.

For example, where A accepted a transport offer covering the whole route and sought payment in its own name, delivery by B’s driver does not automatically remove A. Conversely, A’s logo on an email alone does not establish the scope of its undertaking. Under Articles 4 and 9, the consignment note is important evidence; its absence or irregularity does not automatically eliminate the contract. Identify legal company names separately from brands, and the driver separately from the company.

3. Subcontracted carriage and successive carriage are not interchangeable labels

Article 34 CMR addresses carriage governed by one contract and performed by successive road carriers. Acceptance of the goods and consignment note by the subsequent carrier, thereby becoming a party on its terms, matters. Two companies in a file, a vehicle change or performance by someone else does not dispense with investigating those conditions. The receipt, name/address entries and reservations addressed by Article 35 also belong in the evidential file for that relationship.

Where successive carriage is established, Article 36 directs loss, damage or delay proceedings against the first carrier, last carrier or carrier performing the part during which the causative event occurred; several such carriers may be sued together. Its exception for counterclaims and set-off in proceedings based on the same contract also remains. Do not read this as making everyone named in the chain a debtor in every case. Establish separately the basis for a direct claim against a subcontractor, Article 3 responsibility and Articles 34–36 conditions.

4. Why must case law be read against the contractual and consignment-note chain?

In its judgment of 15 November 2012, file E.2011/11268, decision K.2012/18324, the Court of Cassation’s 11th Civil Chamber rejected dismissal of an insurer’s damaged-carriage recovery claim against a subcontractor solely because it was not a party to the carriage contract. Referring to Articles 34 and 36, it stated that both carriers could be sued and quashed the judgment. It was not a final finding that the subcontractor owed every loss item; responsibility was to be determined under CMR.

The same Chamber’s judgment of 6 November 2024, E.2023/4799, K.2024/7801 concerns recovery after a carrier’s payment. The affirmed regional appellate decision examined the same consignment note, the portions undertaken and the performance-assistant connection when characterising successive carriage. Its inter-carrier recovery context must not be confused with a cargo interest’s initial damage claim. The shared practical warning is to reconstruct the actual contractual and handover chain rather than simply label companies “upper” or “lower”.

5. Build a separate document and respondent schedule for each company

Match the booking, acceptance messages, all note copies, stamps/signatures, subcontracting instructions, handover/transshipment reports and delivery document to the same shipment. A registration plate or driver’s name alone does not identify the debtor’s legal company name. Use separate columns for each company’s undertaking and the origin of each record. If you do not hold a document, establish what it would clarify in this case rather than automatically classifying it as mandatory or missing.

Preserve photographs, expert findings and timing records showing damage within the carrier’s taking-over-to-delivery period. Distinguish condition at delivery from later storage or opening. Identifying a contractual respondent does not resolve quantum, a packing defence or liability limits. Those are separate issues. In a claim letter, identify the loss item, shipment, capacity relied on and evidential chain; do not construct duplicated accounts intended to recover the same amount several times.

6. Do not miss notice and limitation while investigating the respondent

Under Article 30 CMR, reservations for apparent damage are addressed no later than delivery; written reservations for non-apparent damage are assessed under the seven-day regime excluding the delivery day, Sundays and public holidays. Do not generally count seven working days. The twenty-one-day written-reservation condition for delay alone differs. Distinguish the evidential effect of damage reservations from limitation. Notice to a seller, insurer or one participant in the chain must not be assumed to notify every carrier.

Article 32 provides a general one-year limitation period, with three years for wilful misconduct or default treated as equivalent by the law of the court seized. Physical damage runs from delivery, excluding the initial day. To assess suspension by a written claim, review respondent, receipt, written rejection and return of attachments. Do not assume that a letter to one company affects all others identically or that repeating the same claim produces a new suspension. Special inter-carrier recovery triggers such as Article 39(4) do not automatically transfer to this initial damage claim.

7. Prepare CMR responsibility separately from Turkish enforcement

For proceedings in Türkiye, examine Article 31 CMR’s international-jurisdiction framework separately from Turkish subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction. For commercial monetary, compensation and objection-annulment actions, assess the commercial court of first instance and pre-action mediation under Commercial Code Articles 5 and 5/A. A consignment note alone does not settle which claim lies against whom or satisfy every enforcement route. Determine the enforcement office’s competence and named debtors separately.

In ordinary enforcement without a judgment, Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law Article 62 provides seven days from service to object to the payment order; Article 67 provides one year from service of the objection on the creditor to seek annulment. That second period does not replace CMR limitation; availability of one does not preserve the other. Review the actual enforcement and service file together. The full interactive guide prepares respondents and records; it does not determine a company’s conclusive liability, an award or an individual final date.

Sources

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

CMR damage: carrier-chain and respondent preparation guide

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