Abstract

The article says about the limitation of actions arising out of carriage under the regulation of the Convention on the contract for international carriage of goods by Road (CMR) [further called CMR or Convention]. The rules of CMR have a direct application in every of the 55 countries — parts of the Convention and a civil character. The Convention has been signed in two authentic languages — English and French, but there are official translations to the languages of parts of the Convention. As the author points out, there are different rules of interpretation of the international legal rules and the national legal rules. The Convention should be interpreted accordingly to the interpretation rules specified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Hence, the interpretation should be made in a good faith, accordingly to a typical meaning of words and with the consideration of the context and the purpose of an interpreted legal act. The Convention should be applied homogeneously in every country. The limitation of an action causes the negative effect to the individuals and legal entities, who has not used their rights for a specific period of time. Although the limitation of an action is known in most of the legal systems, it is not an identical legal institution. In most legal systems it is an institution of a substantive law, but in some systems, it is regulated under the laws of procedure. There are three different types of the effect caused by the limitation of an action, that are: an expiration of the right and the action, only an expiration of the action and the right to exercise a plea of limitation of the right of action. It is prohibited to use national legal rules to the aspects regulated under the Convention. The institution of limitation of an action is regulated in art. 32 CMR, but it is not an exhaustive rule. The suspension and the break of the period of limitation of actions are regulated by the law at the seat of the litigation. Other aspects of the limitation of actions, which are not specified in CMR, are regulated by the national legal rules. The catalogue of the situations when the Convention can be applied is not closed. Author notices that the Convention is applied to the wide range of cases, even slightly connected with the international carriage of goods by road and it is possible that the conflict of law occurs. The period of limitation of actions arising out of carriage under the Convention shall be one year, but in case of willful misconduct the period of limitation shall be three years. There are three different moments from which this period shall begin to run, depending on what has happened. The day on which the period of limitation begins to run shall not be included in the period. Sundays and national holidays are included instead. Other aspects are regulated by national rules. A written claim is voluntary and shall suspend the period of limitation until such date as the carrier rejects the claim by notification in writing and returns the documents attached thereto. There is a problem of understanding the meaning of “written form”, because there is no uniform meaning of it. Author suggests that the Convention includes an autonomic meaning of the written form. Further problem is to setting of the moment of the receipt of the claim. There’s no uniform practice. Because of that, there is a need to use an appropriate, applicable national rules. Author points out that the Convention has a different content in English and French. The meaning of the art. 32 point 4 CMR in French leads to conclusion that the right of an action expires. But the same article in English says that the right of an action, which has become barred by lapse of time, may not be exercised by the way of counterclaim or set -off. The conclusion from English version it that the limitation of an action cannot be used as a mean of defense but there are no barriers to the actions for limited pretensions in other legal proceedings. The interpretation of art. 32 point 4 CMR under the rules of an international interpretation leads to the conclusion that the time -barred claims cannot be forcibly claimed.