Jurisdiction in a CMR dispute: agreement, branch and place of delivery

In an international CMR carriage, jurisdiction may determine the country in which a dispute about freight, damage or delivery is heard. Article 31 CMR limits the available courts to specific connecting factors and allows a parties’ agreement only within that framework.

Before starting proceedings, the defendant’s seat, a relevant branch, the place where the goods were taken over and the intended place of delivery must be identified separately. A clause in a transport order does not answer the question automatically if its formation or scope is unclear.

This article addresses jurisdiction and parallel proceedings under Article 31 CMR. Limitation, arbitration agreements under Article 33 CMR and the substantive law applicable to the claim are distinguished but not covered in full.

Article 31(1) CMR applies to disputes arising from a carriage governed by the Convention. As a general rule, the claimant may use only the courts of a Contracting State identified there. Other courts are excluded under the wording of the provision unless the parties have made a permissible agreement.

The rule concerns international jurisdiction. It does not automatically decide liability, the amount of a claim or limitation. The section on the CMR and the contract of carriage provides the appropriate overview of the transport contract and its scope.

The particular dispute requires the Contracting States, the roles of the parties and the individual transport places to be established. Only then can it be assessed whether a chosen court falls within the framework of Article 31 CMR.

Without a special agreement, Article 31(1)(a) CMR first refers to the state where the defendant has its usual residence or principal place of business. A branch or office through which the contract of carriage was concluded may also be relevant.

Article 31(1)(b) CMR also refers to the state where the goods were taken over or where the intended place of delivery is located. These connecting factors do not cover every point along the route. They must relate to the carriage agreed by the parties.

The section on cross-border carriage connects these places with the consignment note, route and contractual chain. For a decision about proceedings, each connecting factor should be supported by a specific record.

Article 31(1) CMR permits the parties to agree on particular courts of a Contracting State. A clause should therefore do more than name a country. It should identify a court or a sufficiently determinable jurisdiction, and the documents and communications must show that the parties actually agreed.

In 7 Ob 150/19p of 22 January 2020, the Austrian Supreme Court held that an exclusive jurisdiction clause cannot simply remove all courts listed in Article 31(1) CMR. An additional choice of court is not invalid for that reason alone. The wording and effect of the clause must be examined carefully.

The CMR does not comprehensively regulate the form of the agreement. The law of the court seised may therefore be relevant to form. Within the European Union, Article 25 of the Brussels Ia Regulation is particularly important. A clause in invoices or standard terms sent after the contract does not automatically prove agreement.

Not every branch of the defendant opens jurisdiction under Article 31(1)(a) CMR. The relevant branch or office must have been involved in concluding the contract of carriage. The connection between that office and formation of the contract must therefore be specific and traceable.

The transport order, emails, loading instructions, confirmations, powers of attorney and company details used at the time may all matter. Later invoice processing or general customer service does not by itself prove that the office concluded the contract of carriage.

Where a freight-forwarding order is involved, the contractual roles must also be separated. The section on freight forwarding and logistics contracts helps distinguish the contracting party, carrier and office involved.

The takeover place is where the carrier takes the goods for the carriage governed by the contract. The delivery place is the place intended for delivery. Both may appear in the transport order and consignment note, but inconsistencies must be assessed against the entire contractual relationship.

An intermediate stop, transshipment point or customs location is not automatically the relevant delivery place merely because part of the journey occurred there. The contractually intended delivery place remains decisive. Differences between the order, consignment note and actual events should be recorded with dates and their documentary source.

Bring together the transport order, consignment note, delivery note, tracking data and communications about any changed address. The transport-contract checklist helps organise places, roles and jurisdiction clauses.

Article 31(2) CMR addresses a situation in which proceedings about the same dispute are pending before a court competent under paragraph 1 or a judgment has already been issued there. A new claim between the same parties about the same matter should generally not be brought.

The parties and subject matter must be compared. A mere overlap in route or a similar type of damage is not enough. Proceedings are also not automatically barred where the first decision cannot be enforced in the state in which the new claim is brought.

Preserve the first claim, subject matter, service records, any judgment and information about enforceability. This prevents a second proceeding from being started without considering the procedural effect of the first one.

A jurisdiction review normally needs more than a single clause. Preserve the transport order, confirmation, consignment note, terms, loading and delivery details, company addresses and communications about changes. The records should be clearly linked to the particular shipment.

Prepare a short chronology. Who concluded the carriage contract with whom? Which office was involved? Where were the goods taken over and what delivery place was intended? Was a clause sent after formation or was the delivery address changed?

In a cargo dispute, jurisdiction and preservation of evidence should not be confused. The guidance on preserving cargo-damage evidence helps with photographs, reservations and delivery records. The jurisdiction issue is separate, although it may rely on some of the same documents.

Assuming every court along the route is competent: Article 31 CMR identifies specific connecting factors. An arbitrary intermediate stop is not enough.

Selecting a branch without a contractual connection: The branch must have been involved in concluding the contract of carriage.

Applying an exclusive clause without review: The Supreme Court distinguishes an impermissible exclusion of Article 31 courts from an additional choice of court.

Treating later standard terms as consent: The actual agreement and applicable formal requirements must be proven.

Confusing the takeover place with the delivery place: Each has a separate function and must be established from the contract records.

Starting a second proceeding without comparing the first file: Parties, subject matter and enforceability must be checked.

First preserve the complete contract and transport file. Mark the parties’ seats and branches, the contract formation, takeover place, intended delivery place and every jurisdiction clause. Record which document supports each point.

Then review the possible courts in the order set by Article 31 CMR and compare the clause with the mandatory connecting factors. If proceedings are already pending, the subject matter and enforceability must also be checked.

Where records conflict, several parties are involved or parallel proceedings are a risk, the transport file should be reviewed promptly. This allows the next steps to be based on the actual contract formation and provable places.