CIM rail carriage: How a written claim suspends limitation

In international rail carriage under CIM, a written claim can suspend the running of limitation. The decisive points are the correct claim, the starting date, receipt by the responsible carrier and the documents attached to the claim.

Article 48 CIM generally provides a one-year limitation period. A two-year period applies to certain claims. For total loss, damage, partial loss and delay, the starting point is linked to different events.

This article explains claims under Article 43 CIM and their effect under Article 48(3) CIM. The rules concern international carriage of goods by rail. CMR road carriage, passenger rights and the calculation of an individual claim remain separate matters.

Article 48 CIM governs limitation of claims arising from the contract of carriage. The first review must therefore establish that the particular international rail carriage and the claim fall within the CIM rules. The mere use of a consignment note does not always answer that question.

The file should contain the carriage contract, consignment note, carriers involved, departure and destination and the delivery records. For damage, record whether the claim concerns total loss, partial loss, damage or delay.

This classification is separate from CMR road carriage. The article on CMR limitation for cargo damage addresses the corresponding, but distinct, rules for international road carriage.

The basic rule in Article 48(1) CIM is that claims arising from the contract of carriage become time-barred after one year. This is the starting position where no specific two-year category has been established. A longer period should therefore not be inferred merely from the value of the loss or the seriousness of the dispute.

Article 48(1) CIM identifies four categories with a two-year period. They include claims for payment of cash on delivery collected by the carrier, claims for payment of proceeds from a sale made by the carrier, damage caused intentionally or recklessly with knowledge that the damage would probably result, and claims arising from a carriage preceding reconsignment in the case described by Article 28 CIM.

The length of the period must be distinguished from its starting point. First classify the claim. Then determine the starting point under Article 48(2) CIM and examine whether a written claim suspends limitation.

For total loss, limitation begins on the thirtieth day after the delivery period has expired. The delivery period must therefore be established from the carriage contract, consignment note or another reliable agreement. The starting point is not simply the day on which the loss was first noticed internally.

For partial loss, damage or delay, limitation begins on the date of delivery. If delivery took place in several parts or concerned separate shipment units, the file must show which unit is concerned and when it was actually delivered.

For all other cases, limitation begins on the day on which the claim can be asserted. Article 48(2) CIM excludes the day designated as the beginning from the period in every case. Each claim item should therefore have its own date line.

Article 43(1) CIM requires claims arising from the contract of carriage to be made in writing to the carrier against whom the claims may be brought in court. A message to any company in the transport chain is therefore not automatically sufficient.

Under Article 43(2) CIM, a claim may be submitted by persons entitled to bring the claim against the carrier in court. Articles 43(3) and (4) contain additional rules for the consignor and consignee concerning the consignment note and its duplicate.

Article 43(5) CIM addresses the consignment note, its duplicate and other documents that the claimant wishes to attach. They are to be produced in the original or as copies, with properly certified form if the carrier requests it. Under Article 43(6), the carrier may require originals when settling the claim so that the final settlement can be recorded on them. The documents should therefore be kept in the exact version sent.

Under Article 48(3) CIM, limitation is suspended by a written claim made under Article 43 CIM. The suspension lasts until the day on which the carrier rejects the claim in writing and returns the attached documents. The date on which the first message was sent is therefore not the only relevant date.

The file should bring together the claim, its receipt, the attachments, the written rejection and the return of the documents. An acknowledgement of receipt, a transmitted PDF, a postal delivery record or an electronic delivery record may be important. Which evidence is sufficient depends on the communication and the applicable procedural law.

Suspension does not change the legal basis of the claim. It also does not prove that the carrier is liable for the damage. It keeps the limitation period in abeyance under the conditions of Article 48(3) CIM while contract, damage, causation and liability remain separate questions.

Article 48(3) CIM places the burden of proving the filing of a claim, the response and the return of the documents on the person relying on those facts. A statement that a claim was “sent at the time” is therefore not a sufficient record by itself.

Keep the exact claim text, the language used and the attachments. Record the correct recipient, shipment number, method of transmission, time of receipt and any automatic acknowledgement. For postal delivery, keep the version sent together with the delivery record.

The carrier’s response and the return of the documents are equally important. If there is no clear written rejection, record that communication status separately. A continuous file helps prevent the response, partial acceptance and return of documents from being treated as the same event.

If the claim is partly accepted, limitation starts to run again under Article 48(3) CIM for the part that remains disputed. The accepted position and the open balance should therefore be recorded separately. Treating the entire claim as one undifferentiated amount makes the time review harder.

Further claims concerning the same claim do not suspend limitation again. This does not mean that every later message is irrelevant. It may matter for the amount, partial acceptance, evidence or the question whether a written rejection was issued. It cannot, however, automatically be entered as a new suspension event for the same claim.

Where several losses, shipments or claim items are involved, check whether they are truly the same claim. A new claim concerning an independent item is not automatically the same as a repetition of the original demand. The allocation must be clear from the content, shipment and documents.

Applying the CMR rule without checking: CIM rail carriage and CMR road carriage are different conventions with their own claim rules.

Always assuming one year: Article 48(1) CIM contains specific two-year categories that must be tested against the claim.

Using the damage date as the starting point: For damage and partial loss, the date of delivery is generally decisive.

Sending the claim to the wrong recipient: Article 43 CIM requires the carrier against whom the claim may be brought in court.

Treating an internal damage list as a claim: Written form, entitlement, addressee, consignment note and documents must be considered together.

Counting every follow-up email as a new suspension: Further claims concerning the same claim do not suspend limitation again under Article 48(3) CIM.

First prepare a table for each claim item. Record the carriage contract, consignment note, taking over, delivery period, delivery or loss, discovery of damage, claim, attachments, receipt, response and return of documents, each with its supporting record.

Then classify the claim under Article 48(1) and (2) CIM. Check the one-year or two-year period, the correct starting point and whether a claim under Article 43 CIM was filed. Mark accepted and disputed parts separately.

The article on risk transfer in transport can add context on which contractual documents and delivery terms should be available in the transport file. It does not replace a CIM limitation review, but it can help connect the contract and the shipment.

Under Article 48(5) CIM, the law applicable in other respects governs suspension and interruption. The international rule on a written claim should therefore not be treated as a complete statement of every national rule governing the further course of limitation.

Receive new articles and legal updates from the firm with BRANDaktuelle Rechtsnews. Subscribe to the newsletter.