Road transport lawyer Paris: consignment note, CMR, damage and unpaid freight.

No, but it greatly simplifies proof. In international carriage, the CMR Convention provides that the contract is evidenced by a consignment note made out in three copies, while specifying that its absence, irregularity or loss affects neither the existence nor the validity of the contract (Articles 4 and 5). The document is evidence of the conditions of the contract and of the carrier's receipt of the goods, until proof to the contrary (Article 9).

In domestic carriage, the consignment note forms the contract between the parties involved (Article L. 132-8 of the Commercial Code), but other documents can stand in for it. The Paris Court of Appeal held that "proof of delivery may be provided by a consignment note or by any other document such as a delivery note on which the carrier's name appears" (our translation) (CA Paris, pole 5 ch. 5, 19 January 2023, No. 20/14522). In another case, it accepted extracts from the software shared between the companies to establish each journey (CA Paris, pole 5 ch. 5, 6 June 2024, No. 21/08672).

The firm therefore gathers the signed notes, tracking records, order emails and invoices, then checks that they correctly identify the carrier that is claiming or being sued.

The test is the route provided for in the contract. The Convention applies to any carriage of goods by road for reward in vehicles, where the place of taking over and the place of delivery stated are in two different countries, at least one of which is a contracting state, whatever the domicile and nationality of the parties (Article 1 of the CMR). France published it by Decree No. 61-725 of 5 July 1961.

A journey from Lyon to Lille, by contrast, falls under Articles L. 133-1 et seq. of the Commercial Code and the standard contracts of the Transport Code (Code des transports). The distinction changes the reservations, the starting point of the limitation period, the caps and the competent court, since the Convention limits the courts in which the claimant may sue (Article 31).

The mixed case is common: a freight forwarder organises a carriage from abroad end to end and entrusts part of the journey to a French carrier. The Rouen Court of Appeal thus applied the Convention between the consignee and the organiser of a carriage that started in Italy (CA Rouen, civil and commercial ch., 18 June 2026, No. 25/01508). The same court also notes that the Convention concerns freight forwarders only if they also act as carriers. The firm therefore examines the initial transport order, each contract in the chain and the capacity of each party, without extending the Convention to every relationship merely because the overall operation is international.

Precise, dated and signed reservations that describe the general nature of the damage. For apparent loss or damage, they are made at the latest at the time of delivery; for non-apparent damage, they must be sent in writing to the carrier within seven days, Sundays and public holidays excluded (Article 30 of the CMR). Delay gives rise to compensation only if a written reservation is sent within twenty-one days of the goods being placed at the consignee's disposal.

For loss or damage, the absence of reservations is not fatal. The Court of Cassation holds that the provision "merely establishes a rebuttable presumption of conforming delivery, which the consignee may rebut by proof to the contrary, and not a bar to its action" (our translation) (Cass. com., 22 March 2016, No. 14-12.335). The consignee therefore keeps the possibility of proving that the damage existed at delivery, but will do so with more difficulty.

The firm advises refusing vague wording, such as "subject to unpacking", which describes nothing. It then follows up with a letter to the carrier and, if necessary, a joint report with its representative.

The text does not provide for it. Where the consignee has received the goods, any action for damage or partial loss is extinguished if it has not notified the carrier of a reasoned protest, by extrajudicial deed or by registered letter, within three days following receipt, public holidays excluded (Article L. 133-3 of the Commercial Code). An email, however prompt, exposes the consignee to a dispute over its form and over the date of receipt.

The protest must state reasons: it describes the damage, the packages affected and the circumstances known. Reservations entered on the delivery note do not, on their own, satisfy the form required by this provision. If the condition of the goods is disputed, a request for an expert assessment submitted to the president of the court within the same time limit amounts to a protest (Article L. 133-4 of the Commercial Code).

The rule is a mandatory rule of public policy for domestic carriage: a clause excluding it is null, but that nullity does not apply to international carriage. The firm drafts the protest as soon as it receives the photographs, sends it by registered post the same day and keeps proof of posting.

By a written claim sent to the carrier. Under Article 32 of the CMR, actions are time-barred after one year, or three years in case of wilful misconduct or fault regarded as equivalent under the law of the court seised. The Court of Cassation reiterates that "a written claim suspends the limitation period until the day on which the carrier rejects the claim in writing and returns the documents attached to it" (our translation); it approved a court of appeal that had held that emails announcing the transmission of the file to the insurer "did not constitute a rejection of the claim within the meaning of Article 32-2 of the CMR" (our translation) (Cass. com., 8 February 2023, No. 20-22.496).

The claim must nevertheless enable the carrier to take a position. The Rouen Court of Appeal held that "the claim capable of suspending the limitation period is one that contains a request for compensation enabling the recipient to take a position, so that it must contain a quantification, even a provisional one, if only the price of the lost goods" (our translation); for want of an amount, the consignee's letter had suspended nothing and its action was declared inadmissible (CA Rouen, civil and commercial ch., 18 June 2026, No. 25/01508). This is a decision unfavourable to the consignee, rendered on the facts of the case.

For the rest, suspension is governed by the law of the forum: the Court of Cassation applied Article 2234 of the French Civil Code (Code civil) to a claimant who had legitimately been unaware that its right had arisen. The firm therefore sends a quantified claim, even a provisional one, with the supporting documents, and monitors the carrier's written reply.

It depends on the weight of the consignment and on who loaded. Under the general standard contract, the carrier itself carries out the loading, wedging and securing of consignments of less than three tonnes (Article 7.1). From three tonnes, these operations fall to the sender, under its responsibility, the carrier having to check that they do not compromise road safety and to make reservations in case of apparent defect (Article 7.2.1).

The Court of Cassation reiterates that in this case "it is relieved of liability for loss of or damage to the goods during carriage if it establishes that the damage results from a non-apparent defect in the loading, wedging and securing or from an apparent defect for which it would have made reservations" (our translation). It approved a court of appeal according to which "the judgment finds that it is not established that the damage resulted from a non-apparent defect in the loading, wedging and securing, and that the mere breaking of the straps was not sufficient to establish it" (our translation), which left the carrier, which supplied the straps, liable (Cass. com., 20 November 2024, No. 23-18.165).

A seller who loads the goods itself may also be liable. Despite an ex-works sale, a party that signed the consignment note as sender-consignor and "itself carries out the loading, wedging and securing of the goods sold, assumes responsibility for it" (our translation) (Cass. com., 5 July 2023, No. 21-21.115). The firm therefore establishes who physically loaded, who supplied the securing equipment and what reservations appear on the document.

The calculation starts from the weight and the notion of consignment. For a consignment of less than three tonnes, the general standard contract applies €33 per kilogram of gross weight of goods missing or damaged, without exceeding €1,000 per package; for three tonnes and over, €20 per kilogram, up to a limit of €3,200 multiplied by the gross weight of the consignment in tonnes (Article 22.1).

The second limit is calculated on the whole consignment, not on the damaged item alone. Ruling on the former version of the standard contract, the Court of Cassation held that "the cap on the compensation payable by the carrier must be calculated on the gross weight of the entire load and not on the gross weight of the damaged goods alone" (our translation) (Cass. com., 5 July 2023, No. 21-21.115). For a 5.3-tonne mould delivered with a steel coil to the same consignee, the error in the basis of calculation had reduced the compensation.

The principal may set these figures aside by a declaration of value, which replaces the cap with the declared amount if it is made in writing or electronically no later than the conclusion of the contract and if the price agreed for it is paid (Article 22.2). The firm therefore checks the weights shown on the transport order and the consignment note before any quantification.

Not by itself. The cap falls away in case of inexcusable fault, defined as a deliberate fault implying awareness of the probability of the damage and its reckless acceptance without valid reason (Article L. 133-8 of the Commercial Code); under the CMR, the carrier loses the limitation in case of wilful misconduct or of fault that the law of the court seised regards as equivalent (Article 29).

Two recent judgments show how demanding this proof is, and both are unfavourable to the shipper. On 4 March 2026, the Court of Cassation approved the court of appeal for stating that "inexcusable fault requires a deliberate fault, awareness of the probability of the damage and its reckless acceptance, without valid reason, and cannot consist of negligence, even gross negligence" (our translation), in a theft at a site equipped with a gate, a control area and cameras (Cass. com., 4 March 2026, No. 24-17.979).

On 21 October 2026, it set aside a judgment that had found inexcusable fault by a driver who had got lost and left the rear door open, "on grounds unsuited to establishing inexcusable fault on the part of the carrier, which does not result from a combination of serious acts of negligence" (our translation) (Cass. com., 21 October 2026, No. 23-20.116). The same judgment, on the other hand, approves the court of appeal which, in view of those facts, "was entitled to deduce that the circumstances of the theft were not unavoidable and to refuse to relieve the carrier of its liability" (our translation) (same judgment). The refusal of relief is therefore final, but inexcusable fault and the amount of compensation will be retried by the court of appeal to which the case is remitted. The firm looks for precise facts: instructions knowingly breached, declared value, risk flagged.

Only on the points it covers. The contract for the public carriage of goods must specify the nature of the carriage, how it is to be performed, the obligations of each party and the price (Article L. 1432-2 of the Transport Code); failing a written agreement, the relations between the parties are governed by the standard contracts (Article L. 1432-4 of the Transport Code), of which the general contract appears in the annex to the Transport Code (Article D. 3222-1 of the Transport Code).

The Court of Cassation has drawn a consequence from this that often surprises shippers: "the existence of a written agreement does not by itself exclude the application of the general standard contract, since, if that agreement is silent on one or other of the matters mentioned in Article L. 1432-4 of the Transport Code, the clause of the standard contract applies as of right as a default rule" (our translation) (Cass. com., 9 December 2020, No. 19-20.875). In that case, a framework agreement fixed the rates and the insurer but said nothing on compensation; the regulatory cap therefore had to apply, to the shipper's detriment.

The firm therefore reads each clause of the agreement, matter by matter: compensation, time limits, loading, payment. A shipper who wants compensation above the cap must say so clearly, or declare the value of the consignment when placing the order.

Yes, by the direct action. The carrier that performed the carriage may claim payment for its services from the sender and the consignee, who are bound to guarantee the price, and a clause to the contrary is deemed not written (Article L. 132-8 of the Commercial Code). The action is valuable where the principal, a freight forwarder or main carrier, is the subject of insolvency proceedings.

The Paris Court of Appeal specified that "the carrier means the professional who personally performs the service of moving the goods" and that "the direct action provided for by Article L. 132-8 of the Commercial Code is not subject to approval of the subcontractor by the principal" (our translation), while reserving the prohibition on substitution, where the party relying on it proves that the subcontractor knew or should have known of it (CA Paris, pole 5 ch. 5, 6 June 2024, No. 21/08672). In domestic carriage, the time limit remains short: the same court held that "claims for payment for deliveries made before 1 July 2018 must be declared time-barred, regardless of the due date of the invoices" (our translation), the one-year period running from each delivery (same judgment).

A carrier that has itself subcontracted loses this action for the journeys it did not make: the same chamber refused it for two deliveries made by another carrier (CA Paris, pole 5 ch. 5, 19 January 2023, No. 20/14522). The firm therefore sorts the invoices delivery by delivery, checks who drove and acts before the first anniversary of each handover.

Thirty days at most. Article L. 441-11 of the Commercial Code, in II, 5°, sets the payment period for road carriage of goods, freight forwarding and the hire of vehicles with or without driver at thirty days after the date the invoice is issued; this period is maintained in the version of the text that comes into force on 1 January 2027. Failure to comply with this period exposes the debtor to an administrative fine (Article L. 441-16 of the Commercial Code).

The general standard contract repeats this period, provides for late-payment interest equal to five times the legal interest rate and a fixed recovery indemnity of at least €40, and prohibits the customer from unilaterally setting off the price against a loss it alleges (Articles 19.1 to 19.3).

The price may also move with energy costs: it is revised as of right according to the variation in the cost of propulsion fuels and, failing a stipulation, by reference to the indices of the Comité national routier or, by default, to the diesel index (Article L. 3222-1 of the Transport Code; Article L. 3222-2 of the Transport Code). The firm recalculates the debt on this basis before any formal notice.

It has a privilege over the value of the goods and over the documents relating to them, for the price of carriage, ancillary services, immobilisation of the vehicle, costs incurred for the goods, customs duties and interest, including for earlier operations, if the owner of the goods was involved in them (Article L. 133-7 of the Commercial Code).

Exercising retention has a cost and a risk. In a carriage to Morocco, the subcontractor had paid storage costs during the retention ordered by the unpaid carrier; the Court of Cassation held that its action for reimbursement was subject to the CMR limitation period, and then that it was not time-barred in the circumstances (Cass. com., 8 February 2023, No. 20-22.496).

Before any retention, the firm checks that the debt is indeed a carriage debt, that the owner of the goods is linked to the unpaid operations and that the storage costs can be recovered. Otherwise, the retention can backfire on the carrier.

It can, if it shows that it was in reality a party to the contract. The consignment note has only simple probative force: the Court of Cassation held that "the consignment note is evidence of the existence and conditions of the carriage only until proof to the contrary" (our translation), and it set aside the judgment that had declared inadmissible the insurer subrogated to the rights of an owner not named, without examining whether it "had not organised the transport operation and physically received the cargo, so that it was to be regarded as the actual consignee of the goods" (our translation) (Cass. com., 22 October 2025, No. 24-10.669).

The question often arises where the goods belong to a group company, an end customer or a buyer who organised the collection. The name entered in the consignee box is not enough to close the debate.

The firm gathers the emails ordering the carriage, proof of physical receipt and purchase invoices to establish the status of actual consignee. It checks in parallel the insurer's subrogation, which requires that it has paid the insurance indemnity (Article L. 121-12 of the Insurance Code), before bringing the action within the one-year period.

In principle the sender, unless the carrier is at fault. The Court of Cassation points out that, under Article 11 of the CMR, the sender must supply the documents necessary for customs formalities and that "the carrier is not bound to check whether these documents are accurate or sufficient, the sender being liable for all damage that may result from the insufficiency or irregularity of these documents, except fault on the part of the carrier" (our translation) (Cass. com., 27 March 2024, No. 22-22.586).

The exception worked against the carrier in that case. Its driver, who held two consignment notes and knew that the information received was inaccurate, had drawn up a TIR carnet listing only part of the load, without waiting for the additional documents announced; the carrier's fault was upheld towards the freight forwarder.

The decision shows the value of keeping the exchanges between the driver, operations and the principal. The firm compares the entries in the consignment notes, the customs documents and the messages to determine who knew of the error and when. For duties and penalties claimed by the administration itself, the question also falls within customs law.