For a company that completes international road carriage but is not paid, the issue goes beyond collecting an invoice. Whether the contract falls under the CMR, who owes the charges and when the period starts for each carriage must be examined together. Reconciliation discussions lasting for months do not preserve the claim indefinitely.

This article focuses on the carrier’s unpaid carriage charges, or freight receivable. The cargo owner’s damages claim and the carrier’s claim for payment are different claims. In particular, the delivery date used in cargo damage cases, or the effect of a written claim sent to the carrier, must not automatically be applied to a freight receivable.

Does the CMR apply, and who owes the carriage charges?

The CMR applies to contracts for carriage of goods by road for reward where the place of taking over the goods and the designated delivery place are in two different countries, provided at least one is a contracting country. The scope of the particular contract and exclusions must also be checked. CMR Article 1

Carriage from Türkiye to France is assessed under the CMR because it meets these conditions, rather than simply because it is labelled “international work”. Conversely, carriage confined to Türkiye does not automatically fall under the same regime. Where a logistics relationship combines carriage, organisation, storage and other services, the contract underlying each charge must be identified.

Claiming payment from the correct person is also fundamental. The party placing the transport order, the invoice recipient, the named sender and the person receiving the goods may differ. The contract and relevant documents determine who must pay the freight. A charge agreed with a subcontracted carrier does not become directly recoverable from the cargo owner merely because the same goods were carried.

When does the one-year period begin for freight receivables?

In its decision of 14 June 2012, E.2012/705, K.2012/10606, the Eleventh Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation assessed freight receivables arising from Türkiye–France carriage under the CMR. The Chamber stated that, under Article 32(1)(c), the one-year limitation period for this payment claim begins at the end of the three-month period following conclusion of the carriage contract.

It may therefore be incorrect to start the period for freight charges invariably from delivery or the invoice date. The contract conclusion date, payment due date, delivery date and invoice date should be recorded separately. For multiple carriages, a separate deadline table for each carriage should accompany the aggregate account balance. Looking only at the last invoice cannot grant a fresh period for all earlier carriages.

The case involved carriage documented by 49 CMR consignment notes and enforcement proceedings initiated on 22 March 2011. The first-instance court dismissed the action on the basis that more than one year had elapsed since the last carriage. The Court of Cassation quashed that judgment because the applicable three-month period preceding the commencement of limitation had not been included. This was neither a guarantee of recovery nor a ruling definitively establishing the amount owed; it was a reversal concerning acceptance of a limitation defence using the wrong starting date.

The judgment also mentions the three-year exception for wilful misconduct or fault treated as equivalent under the law of the court hearing the case. Waiting in reliance on a three-year period is inappropriate for an ordinary unpaid freight claim. Non-payment alone does not establish that this exception applies. Full judgment

A demand, acknowledgment of debt and enforcement do not have the same effect

The suspension mechanism for a written claim under Article 32(2) of the CMR is structured around the carrier’s written rejection and return of accompanying documents. It is unsafe to treat a carrier’s demand for freight payment to its customer as automatically suspending limitation under that provision. CMR Article 32

In a dispute heard in Türkiye, Article 154 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, to be considered together with CMR Article 32(3), lists acknowledgment of debt, partial performance and enforcement proceedings among the grounds interrupting limitation. However, not every exchange is an acknowledgment of debt. A response saying “We will review the invoice” has a different evidential value from an express acknowledgment of a specific debt.

With suspension, the time already elapsed remains counted and the remaining period subsequently continues; interruption starts a new period. Under Article 157 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, where enforcement has interrupted limitation, the period starts again after each act relating to pursuit of the claim. Opening an enforcement file and then leaving it inactive for a long time therefore carries a further risk. The effect of each act on the particular claim and debtor must be calculated from the file. Turkish Code of Obligations, Articles 154 and 157

What happens if enforcement proceedings in Türkiye are opposed?

Where the conditions are met, a monetary claim may be pursued through non-judgment enforcement by general attachment. This is not a separate enforcement procedure created by the CMR; it is a procedure under the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. The debtor, underlying carriage, principal amount, currency and interest requested should be clearly stated. The legal basis and starting date for interest must be examined separately.

The deadline for objecting to a payment order in this general enforcement procedure is seven days from service. A timely objection stops enforcement; with a partial objection, proceedings continue for the admitted portion. The creditor’s next course depends on its documents. Under Article 67 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, an action for annulment of the objection must be brought within one year from service of the objection on the creditor.

This one-year litigation deadline differs from the CMR limitation period for the underlying claim. The preservation of a right to bring an ordinary claim after missing the objection-annulment deadline does not mean that the substantive limitation period is automatically preserved. Both calendars must be maintained separately.

Where the special documents specified in Article 68 exist, removal of the objection by the enforcement court may also be considered; its deadline is six months from service of the objection. Not every CMR consignment note or invoice qualifies. This shorter route should not be relied upon without examining the document’s signature, acknowledgment of debt and other statutory requirements. Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, Articles 62, 66, 67 and 68

Commercial mediation and choice of court

For commercial monetary claims and actions for annulment of an objection in Türkiye, applying to mediation before filing suit is a prerequisite, subject to statutory exceptions. This is ordinary commercial mediation under Article 5/A of the Turkish Commercial Code and Law No. 6325. Initiating enforcement and bringing a lawsuit are different in this respect.

The application is made to the mediation bureau where the competent court is located. For commercial mediation, the mediator’s assignment period is six weeks, extendable by up to two weeks where necessary. From the application to the bureau until the final record is drawn up, limitation is suspended and time limits extinguishing rights do not run. This process does not revive periods that have already expired. Turkish Commercial Code, Articles 4, 5 and 5/A, Law No. 6325, Article 18/A

A commercial action is generally heard by a commercial court of first instance. In identifying the country of litigation under CMR Article 31, consideration is given to courts of contracting countries designated by agreement, and connections involving the defendant’s ordinary residence, principal place of business or contracting branch or agency, and the place of taking over the goods or designated delivery place. Territorial competence of the particular Turkish court and enforcement office requires a separate assessment; the creditor’s own address is not, by itself, sufficient in every case. CMR Article 31 — official RIS text

How should the recovery file be prepared?

The carriage contract or order, acceptance correspondence, CMR consignment notes, delivery records, invoices, payment-term agreements, bank transactions and account reconciliations should be gathered together. Each entry should identify the contract date, transport reference, debtor, charge, due date, payment and remaining amount. The allocation of partial payments to individual carriage debts should also be shown.

If the debtor raises damage, delay, set-off or payment defences, their supporting documents must be examined separately. Presenting only the invoice total may not resolve these objections. Different currencies, additional services and work involving multiple companies increase the risk of calculation and party-identification errors. Establishing the correct debtor, correct deadline and carriage-specific evidence at the outset provides a stronger basis than gathering missing documents after enforcement has begun.

Sources