CMR delivery deadline exceeded: delay damage and liability cap

For a delayed international road consignment, the claimant must establish three points: the relevant delivery period, the actual damage and the link between the delay and that damage. Under the CMR, compensation for delay is generally capped at the carriage charges.

Article 19 CMR defines delay by reference to the agreed delivery period. If no period was agreed, the relevant question is how long a diligent carrier would reasonably need in the circumstances. Article 23(5) CMR also requires proven damage and generally limits compensation to the amount of the carriage charges.

This article deals exclusively with delay damage in a CMR carriage. Loss or damage to the goods, delivery obstacles and the calculation of limitation periods follow separate rules.

Article 19 CMR links delay to exceeding the agreed delivery period. The transport order, consignment note or another reliable agreement may record that period. The agreed date must relate to the particular consignment and should not be reconstructed only from a later internal plan.

If no delivery period was agreed, compare the actual carriage duration with the reasonable duration in the circumstances. The route, distance, ordinary operations, necessary handovers and known obstacles may be relevant. Article 19 CMR does not provide a general fixed number of days.

Keep the agreed date, takeover, interim messages and delivery in one chronology with supporting records. This helps distinguish a risk of delay from a delay that has already occurred.

Article 23(5) CMR requires proof of damage for compensation caused by delay. The late delivery and the financial disadvantage therefore need separate evidence. General dissatisfaction with the transport process does not establish the amount of damage.

Depending on the case, evidence may include a missed onward delivery, additional storage or replacement carriage costs, a documented production stoppage or a specific contractual consequence. Each item needs a comprehensible amount, a time link to the delay and an explanation of why it would not have arisen without the late delivery.

Where goods could still be used or resold despite the delay, the actual economic disadvantage needs particular care. Turnover, lost profit and internal expenditure are different items and should not be treated as interchangeable without evidence.

Article 17(1) CMR makes the carrier liable for delay between taking over the goods and delivering them. Liability is connected with the transport sequence, so the cause of the missed delivery period must be examined.

Article 17(2) CMR addresses circumstances that the carrier could not avoid and whose consequences it could not prevent. Whether that ground applies depends on the particular cause, the available responses and the evidence. A general reference to traffic, weather or an official measure does not answer those questions.

Record the cause, when it became known, the measures taken and the communications with sender and consignee. The liability assessment remains separate from the question of the amount of proven delay damage.

Article 23(5) CMR generally caps compensation for delay at the amount of the carriage charges. The carriage charges are the agreed or otherwise payable remuneration for the particular carriage. A proven higher loss therefore does not automatically become recoverable in full.

A different assessment may follow from a declaration of a special interest in delivery under Article 26 CMR. The declaration must meet the applicable requirements. A later statement that the consignment was especially important does not replace the declaration.

The cap must be distinguished from liability for loss of or physical damage to the goods. Those losses follow different assessment rules. This article addresses the delay and the resulting economic disadvantage only.

A delay review needs the agreed date, the actual delivery time and the supporting records. The article on the CMR consignment note explains why consignment-note entries and a clear delivery record matter for the transport file.

Also preserve status messages, arrival times, locations, handovers, instructions and communications about the delay. If the consignee could not accept the goods at the destination, that sequence needs separate assessment. A CMR delivery obstacle concerns a different situation from delivery that was possible but late.

For delayed delivery, a written notice within the period referred to in Article 30(3) CMR may also matter. Secure its content, receipt and connection with the consignment. The claim review should not rest on one message alone.

Documenting only the late delivery: The financial loss and its cause need separate evidence.

Treating an internal target time as the delivery period: The relevant period must be agreed or reasonable in the circumstances.

Adding every consequence together: Damage items must be traceable in time and calculation.

Overlooking the carriage-charge cap: Article 23(5) CMR generally limits delay compensation to the carriage charges.

Assuming a special interest declaration after the event: Article 26 CMR requires a corresponding declaration meeting its conditions.

Mixing delay and physical damage: Damage to the goods raises separate claim and calculation questions.

Prepare a timeline with the order, agreed or reasonable delivery period, takeover, cause of delay, delivery and all status messages. Mark the document supporting each date.

Assign each damage item to a specific event. Calculate the amount transparently and set out the carriage charges and any special interest declaration under Article 26 CMR. This makes the cap visible at an early stage.

If the cause, delivery time or damage is disputed, the complete transport file should be reviewed promptly. Mag. Bernhard Brandauer, Austrian attorney-at-law, assists with assessing CMR liability and the next steps.

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