Does a written claim to the carrier suspend CMR limitation? Rejection, document return and enforcement timing

Full topic-specific Information Guide ↓

When goods are damaged during international road carriage, parties often request payment from the carrier before bringing proceedings. This correspondence is more than a negotiation record: a written claim within CMR may have a particular effect on limitation. Yet not every email, invoice or message to an insurer achieves that effect. Examine the recipient, scope, receipt, attachments and subsequent rejection together. Suspension is not the same as obtaining a fresh year.

First establish CMR scope and the recipient of the claim

CMR applicability requires Article 1 conditions such as carriage of goods by road for reward and contractual taking-over and delivery places in different countries, at least one of which is a contracting country. Check exceptions separately. A document headed CMR does not establish every requirement; under Article 4, absence of a consignment note does not automatically invalidate the carriage contract.

This article concerns limitation preparation for the entitled person’s carriage-related compensation claim against the carrier. A carrier’s freight claim against its customer and recourse between carriers should not be calculated from the same events. In particular, inter-carrier recourse under Article 39 has a separate starting-point assessment. Identify the logistics company’s contractual capacity, actual carrier and correspondence recipient separately.

How does a written claim affect limitation?

Article 32(2) provides for suspension following a written claim, linked to the carrier’s written rejection and return of attached documents. Do not confuse this with interruption of limitation. Time elapsed before suspension is not erased; the remaining period matters when suspension ends. First establish the starting point and elapsed time, then the claim and rejection/return sequence.

The written claim should identify the carriage, loss and payment request addressed to the recipient. Sending only a damage photograph may differ from advancing a specific claim. Examine the heading, shipment reference, description and attachment list together. This article does not guarantee that a standard notice template suspends limitation in every file; review its actual content.

Do not assume the same effect for a request sent to an insurer or unrelated company rather than the carrier. Representation, authority and actual receipt by the carrier matter. A reply from a customer-service address does not invariably settle the recipient issue. Retain the correspondence sequence with the contractual party and claim subject.

Dispatch and evidence of receipt are different

Article 32(2) places the burden of proving receipt of the claim, receipt of the reply and return of documents on the party relying on those events. Seek delivery or receipt evidence rather than relying only on dispatch. Notarial notices, recorded delivery or electronic correspondence may help establish content and recipient. Whichever method is used, identify the attachments as well.

For electronic correspondence, preserve the original message where possible, dates, recipient details, attachments and reply chain rather than only a screenshot. With multiple shipments, connect each claim to its carriage and loss item. A later summary does not alone prove the content of the original claim. Do not leave collection of these records until limitation is close to expiry.

Track written rejection and return of attachments separately

A carrier’s statement that the matter is under review differs from written rejection of payment. Read the rejection against the particular claim and part disputed. Where documents accompanied the claim, keep return evidence separately. Avoid generalisations that a rejection email necessarily restarted every period, or that sending documents creates unlimited time.

Where there were no attachments, only electronic copies, or a dispute over return, the particular file requires legal assessment. This guide does not conclusively determine how return of electronic copies must be treated in every case. Keep the claim, reply and movement of attachments in one chronology without overlooking the rejection and return requirements.

If part of the claim is admitted, Article 32(2) provides for limitation to resume only for the part still in dispute. Separate the admission letter, actual payment and remaining items. Partial admission does not establish payment of every claim or admission of the entire disputed balance. Keep admitted and contested amounts distinct in the calculation.

Repeating the same claim does not provide a fresh period

Article 32(2) expressly excludes renewed suspension through further claims with the same object. Continuing negotiations, issuing another invoice or resending the same notice is therefore not a safe way to extend time. Determine from the content whether later correspondence genuinely concerns another claim or repeats the earlier one.

Do not assume that a claim sent after expiry automatically revives the right. Article 32(4) also contains a specific restriction on exercising a time-barred right by counterclaim or set-off. Assess other events such as acknowledgment, proceedings or enforcement separately under Article 32(3) and the law of the forum.

Starting points and the one-year/three-year distinction

Article 32 generally provides one-year limitation, extending to three years for wilful misconduct or default treated as equivalent under the forum’s law. Not every damage claim automatically receives three years. Delivery matters for partial loss, damage and delay; total loss uses the thirtieth day after the agreed delivery deadline or, without an agreed deadline, the sixtieth day after taking over; other cases use expiry of three months after contracting. Exclude the starting day from the period.

Article 30 reservations for damage and delay are not limitation. In particular, distinguish the twenty-one-day written delay reservation from the written claim under Article 32(2). A document may be alleged to serve both functions, but assess its content, recipient and relevant periods before accepting that proposition. One notification does not resolve every timing issue.

Distinguish a judgment’s reasoning from the grounds of reversal

The Eleventh Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation’s judgment dated 22 February 2010, E.2008/11391, K.2010/1942 examined an insurer’s recourse claim for goods damaged on a Türkiye–United Kingdom shipment. The full text records the trial court’s assessment that a damage-claim notice suspended limitation under Article 32(2). The Court of Cassation reversed particularly on limitation of liability and the starting point for interest.

Do not turn that trial-court reasoning into a guarantee that every last-day notice is timely and sufficient. Actual receipt and rejection/return records remain important. The judgment also discusses interest under Article 27 following a written payment request; interest accrual and suspension of limitation are different questions. A title or search extract alone can be misleading.

Determine Turkish litigation and enforcement separately

Article 31 sets international jurisdictional connections in contracting-country courts, including the carrier’s residence or principal place of business/relevant branch and taking-over or delivery places. Turkish subject-matter jurisdiction additionally depends on the claim and party capacities; assess commercial-court jurisdiction and Article 5/A monetary-action mediation for a commercial carriage dispute. CMR applicability does not itself determine every Turkish enforcement procedure.

The general seven-day payment-order objection under Article 62 and the creditor’s one-year objection-annulment route from service of the objection under Article 67 are separate calendars. That year does not replace CMR limitation. Check timing effects of mediation, acknowledgment, proceedings and enforcement separately. Reliance on Article 32(2) should not lead to an assumption that enforcement objections or procedural action periods are also suspended.

Build the preparation file around a chronology comprising the carriage agreement, delivery record, original written claim, attachment list, receipt evidence, rejection and return records. Give each loss item and later procedural event a place in it. The full guide below lets you mark available records and identify the next check. It calculates no individual final date, stores no selections and assigns no claim-success score.

Sources

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

CMR written claim: receipt, rejection and document-return guide

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