In disputes regarding the damage or destruction of cargo during international transportation, a critical issue is the accurate identification of the sender and the carrier.
This was reported to the Operative Information Center-OMM by the Supreme Court.
In the case under review, the plaintiff stated that based on a verbal agreement with a driver from a legal entity, a shipment of dates was to be transported to Russia. During the transport, a road accident occurred, rendering the goods unusable, and the plaintiff demanded compensation for the damages.
However, in the official documents regarding the cargo—specifically the customs declaration and the international consignment note (CMR)—a different individual was listed as the sender, and a different legal entity was listed as the carrier. This contradiction formed the basis of the legal dispute.
In its decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that the specific characteristics of commercial relations (which are more systematic, complex, profit-oriented, and high-risk) necessitate higher standards of proof in disputes arising from these relations. In such cases, the principle of the "priority of written evidence" is generally applied, meaning written documents (such as contracts) are considered to have higher probative value and reliability.
Given this, the legal significance of written contracts and transport documents, particularly the consignment note, must be emphasized in disputes arising from cargo transportation contracts. According to legislation, unless proven otherwise, the consignment note is considered the primary document confirming:
- The existence of a contract between the sender and the carrier;
- The acceptance of the cargo by the carrier;
- The identity of the sender;
- The identity of the carrier.
Pursuant to Article 851 of the Civil Code, a "sender" is understood as the person in whose name the shipment of the cargo is formalized. In other words, if a specific person is listed as the sender in the consignment note and customs documents, that person is considered the sender in the initial legal assessment.
In the case at hand, although the plaintiff filed a claim as the sender, the transport documents (customs declaration and consignment note) and the sales contract with the buyer listed a different person as the seller and sender. It must also be considered that the person who declares the disputed cargo to the relevant state authorities for export and is responsible for bringing currency into the country for those goods is the sender. Therefore, it is impossible to set aside the content of official documents based solely on verbal explanations regarding the actual relationship.
From this perspective, the conclusion that the person named in the official documents had no involvement and was merely a formal sender, while the plaintiff was the actual sender—reached without involving the named person in the court process and without any legal assessment of the relationship (representation, mandate, commission, etc.) between the plaintiff and that person—is contrary to the requirements of the civil legislation and Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Code. It must be noted that circumstances of a case which, according to law or other normative legal acts, must be proven by specific means of proof, cannot be proven by other evidence.
Regarding the identification of the carrier, the Supreme Court, citing official documents, noted that the status of a legal entity listed as the carrier cannot be denied simply by referring to alleged business practices. For a court to conclude that a specific business practice exists and to resolve a dispute based on that practice, the case materials must contain evidence that "creates no reasonable doubt" regarding the existence of such a practice, and the parties must have acted in accordance with that practice without dispute.
In the case under review, no credible evidence was presented to confirm the formation of a business practice in the mutual relations of the parties that was accepted by them without dispute.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that in disputes regarding international cargo transportation, the identification of the sender and the carrier must first be conducted based on official transport documents. A necessary legal assessment of the status of the persons indicated in those documents must be performed before any assessment of liability can be made.
For the effective protection of rights in the field of cargo transportation, proper documentation of relations is a fundamental requirement. Relying solely on verbal agreements, using the names of other persons in documents, or failing to ensure the proper formalization of transport documents can significantly complicate the protection of rights later on.
Reliable protection of rights in international cargo transportation relations is fundamentally guaranteed by accurate and transparent documentation.
