Inland waterway lawyer in Paris: barge transport, cargo damage, accidents and vessel sales.

An inland waterway transport whose loading and delivery both take place in France falls under the domestic regime, since the CMNI covers only transport between two States (Article 2 of the CMNI). The Transport Code allows the parties to choose between a time charter contract, a tonnage contract and a single or multiple voyage contract (Article L. 4451-1 of the Transport Code), and each of these contracts has its own regulatory standard contract (Article D. 4451-2 of the Transport Code, Article D. 4451-3 of the Transport Code and Article D. 4451-4 of the Transport Code).

Where the parties have put nothing in writing on the content of their obligations, the standard contract applies as of right (Article L. 1432-4 of the Transport Code). The standard voyage contract, in the version in force since 1 March 2020, thus governs the placing of the inland vessel at disposal, loading, laytime, demurrage, the price, compensation ceilings and termination.

The Commercial Code completes this foundation, since its rules on the carrier also apply to carriage by vessel (Article L. 1432-1 of the Transport Code). The carrier therefore guarantees loss and damage (Article L. 133-1 of the Commercial Code); the consignee must protest within three days (Article L. 133-3 of the Commercial Code); and the action is subject to a one-year limitation period (Article L. 133-6 of the Commercial Code).

The firm therefore begins by gathering the contract confirmation, the consignment note and the order correspondence, then checks whether a written agreement displaces the standard contract on any particular point.

The Budapest Convention on the Contract for the Carriage of Goods by Inland Waterway, known as the CMNI, made on 22 June 2001, governs the international contract for the carriage of goods by inland waterway (Article L. 4453-1 of the Transport Code). France published it by Decree No. 2008-192 of 27 February 2008.

It applies where the port of loading or place of taking over and the port of discharge or place of delivery are located in two different States, at least one of which is a party to the convention (Article 2 of the CMNI). A transport without transhipment that uses both inland waterways and sea waters is also subject to it, unless a maritime bill of lading has been issued or the sea leg is the longer one.

The convention is mandatory on the essentials: any clause that excludes or limits the carrier's liability, or increases it other than in the cases provided for in Article 20(4) (declared value, higher agreed limits), reverses the burden of proof or shortens the periods for claims and limitation is void (Article 25). It does, however, allow exemption clauses for nautical fault, fire or explosion on board and certain defects of the vessel that could not be detected despite reasonable diligence.

Without prejudice to its mandatory provisions and in the absence of a written agreement, the clauses of the standard contract also apply as of right to international transport (Article L. 1432-5 of the Transport Code), for the points that the CMNI does not govern (Article 1 of the standard voyage contract). The firm therefore reads the transport document in the light of both texts before writing to the carrier.

The time charter contract places one or more vessels and their crew at the exclusive disposal of the principal for a fixed period, for a price set per day. The tonnage contract commits the carrier to carry a specified tonnage over an agreed period for a freight rate per tonne. The voyage contract covers a specified voyage or a series of successive voyages by the same vessel (Article L. 4451-2 of the Transport Code).

The choice affects the allocation of risk. Under a voyage contract, the shipper pays for a journey and bears demurrage if it exceeds the laytime. Under a time charter, it pays for the vessel's immobilisation, whether or not it is sailing. The voyage contract must also be the subject of a confirmation approved by both parties, kept on board and by the other contracting party (Article L. 4451-7 of the Transport Code).

Two similar arrangements call for the same vigilance. The hire of a cargo vessel with crew must specify each party's obligations as to the use of the crew and the performance of operations (Article L. 4454-1 of the Transport Code). Subcontracting remains the responsibility of the principal carrier (Article L. 4452-1 of the Transport Code) and must take the form of one of the three contracts (Article D. 4452-1 of the Transport Code).

The firm characterises the contract from its actual terms, not its title, because that characterisation determines the applicable standard contract and therefore the ceilings.

In the standard voyage contract, loading, wedging and stowage are the responsibility of the principal or its representative. The carrier must nonetheless provide useful information, supervise operations and request that they be stopped if they endanger the goods or safety (Article 7.1).

Before departure, the carrier carries out an external inspection of the load. If it notes an apparent defect, it enters reasoned reservations on the transport document; once countersigned by the principal, they relieve the carrier of the resulting losses. The carrier nevertheless remains liable for operations it carries out with the equipment of its own vessel.

The CMNI takes a similar approach. The carrier is exempt where the loss results from handling, loading, stowage or unloading carried out by the consignor, the consignee or third parties acting on their behalf (Article 18 of the CMNI).

Rain does not always relieve the party doing the loading. Seised of steel plates that had rusted after being loaded onto a barge on the Rhône, the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence held that "the rain event therefore in no way constitutes an event of force majeure but, on the contrary, an event anticipated and provided for by the parties" (our translation), and held the handling company liable, under the handling services contract that bound it to the consignor (CA Aix-en-Provence, ch. 3-1, 12 March 2025, No. 20/10035). That outcome turns on the contractual instructions in that case, which must be found before any party is identified as liable.

In domestic transport, a consignee who takes delivery loses all recourse for damage or partial shortage unless it sends the carrier, within three days excluding public holidays, a reasoned protest by registered letter or extrajudicial document (Article L. 133-3 of the Commercial Code). A request for an expert assessment made within that period under the procedure of Article L. 133-4 of the Commercial Code counts as a protest (Article L. 133-3, second paragraph).

In international transport, the CMNI distinguishes three situations (Article 23 of the CMNI). Apparent damage must be notified in writing at the latest on delivery, unless there is a joint survey report. Non-apparent damage must be notified within seven consecutive days, and the consignee must then prove that it occurred during transport. Delay gives a right to compensation only if the carrier was notified within twenty-one days following delivery.

The transport document must record the times of arrival and of the start and end of unloading, together with the reasoned reservations (standard voyage contract, Article 3.2). Where there is doubt about quantity, a joint gauging or count settles the discussion, its costs remaining with the party at fault (Articles 7.1 and 7.4).

The firm drafts reservations that describe the nature of the damage, the batch concerned and the method of measurement, then quickly arranges a joint expert assessment, before the goods are resold or processed.

Under the domestic regime, absent a contrary written agreement, the standard voyage contract limits compensation for loss or damage to two euros per kilogram of missing or damaged goods, after deduction of the permitted loss in weight (Article 16.1). For an intermodal transport unit, the ceiling is €25,000 per unit for its contents and €1,500 for the unit itself.

Loss in weight in transit, that is, the normal reduction in mass or volume linked to the nature of the goods, is measured by gauging. Where no tolerance is entered on the transport document, the carrier is liable for anything above 2.5% for goods whose moisture content exceeds 10%, and 1% for dry goods (Article 16.3).

Under the CMNI, compensation is calculated, in the event of total loss, on the value of the goods at the place and on the day of delivery and, in the event of partial loss or damage, up to the loss in value (Article 19). It is capped at 666.67 units of account per package or 2 units of account per kilogram, whichever is higher, with separate ceilings for containers (Article 20). The carrier loses these limits if it acted with intent to cause the damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result (Article 21).

Under the domestic regime, a declaration of value notified when the contract is concluded substitutes the declared value for the ceiling in the standard contract, provided that the agreed price is paid (Article 16.2). The limit also falls away in the event of inexcusable fault by the carrier, the only fault equivalent to fraud (dol), that is, a deliberate fault involving awareness of the probability of the damage and its reckless acceptance without valid reason (Article L. 133-8 of the Commercial Code, applicable through Article L. 1432-1 of the Transport Code). Under the CMNI, the limits also fall away where the nature and higher value of the goods are stated in the transport document without having been disputed by the carrier, or where higher limits have been expressly agreed (Article 20). The firm therefore first checks what was declared, then quantifies the actual loss and the applicable ceiling.

The standard voyage contract sets one laytime for loading and another for unloading: one and a half working days below five hundred tonnes, increased by half a day for each additional five hundred tonnes (Article 9.1). Time runs from noon if the vessel is placed at disposal before noon, and from midnight the following day if it is placed at disposal between noon and midnight.

Where the overrun is not attributable to the carrier, the carrier receives demurrage calculated by a formula per day and per tonne of deadweight, increased from the fourth day, to which are added berthing charges and necessary expenses (Article 9.2).

Conversely, the carrier's delay in placing the vessel at disposal for unloading gives rise, outside force majeure and on proof of loss, to compensation limited to 50% of the principal freight, unless a declaration of special interest in delivery has been made (Article 17). Cancellation of the charter notified less than seven days before loading gives rise to compensation for the proven loss, capped at 40% of the freight if the principal withdraws, and at 30% if the carrier does (Articles 10.1 and 11.1).

Under the CMNI, compensation for delay is capped at the amount of the freight (Article 20), provided that it was notified within twenty-one days. The firm reconstructs the chronology from the transport document, the logbook and the berthing correspondence.

Yes, and the law requires it. The price of inland waterway transport includes fuel costs (Article L. 4451-3 of the Transport Code). Where the contract mentions these costs, the price is revised as of right to take account of the change in the price of fuel between the date of the contract and that of the transport, and the invoice shows the fuel costs borne (Article L. 4451-4 of the Transport Code).

Failing agreement on the terms, the revision applies the change in the consumer price index for domestic heating oil published by Insee (Article L. 4451-5 of the Transport Code). If the contract does not identify the fuel costs, they are determined by reference to their average share in the price of a transport (Article L. 4451-6 of the Transport Code). The carrier's contracting party that disregards these rules is liable to a fine of €15,000 (Article L. 4463-3 of the Transport Code).

The standard voyage contract adds a revision in the event of a significant change in the carrier's overall costs due to external conditions (Article 14.1). It requires payment no later than thirty days after the invoice is issued (Article 15) and prohibits any unilateral set-off of compensation against the transport price (Article 18).

A shipper who disputes damage therefore cannot withhold the freight on its own initiative. The firm separates the freight claim from the compensation claim and deals with each within its own time limit.

When two vessels collide on an inland waterway, compensation follows the convention signed in Geneva in 1960 on collisions in inland navigation (Article L. 4131-1 of the Transport Code). Between a seagoing ship and an inland vessel, the maritime rules apply (Article L. 4132-1 of the Transport Code): each party bears its own damage if the accident is fortuitous or its causes are in doubt (Article L. 5131-3 of the Transport Code), and the action for compensation is subject to a two-year limitation period from the event (Article L. 5131-6 of the Transport Code).

This regime requires proven fault. For a barge moored on the Saône and struck by a drifting ship, the judicial court of Lyon, ruling at first instance, based liability on "proven fault and not on the act of things in one's custody" (our translation); it set aside the victim's amicable expert report, recalling that, while such a report may serve as evidence, "this is on condition that it is corroborated by other evidence also subject to adversarial argument between the parties" (our translation), and dismissed the claim of the owner and its insurers (TJ Lyon, 4th ch., 24 February 2026, No. 22/01694). In a maritime case, the Court of Cassation held this regime applicable to a collision caused by a moored sailing boat whose mooring line had broken, and quashed the judgment that had excluded it, noting that "the condition of absence of mooring therefore concerns only craft that are not ships" (our translation) (Cass. com., 14 December 2022, No. 21-16.785).

Damage caused by a lock falls under a different basis, which depends on the date of the accident. For a pusher craft damaged on 1 August 2012 by a bulky object in the chamber of a lock, at a time when Voies navigables de France was an industrial and commercial public establishment, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled on the liability of the custodian under former Article 1384 of the Civil Code: "It is as custodian of the lock chamber that its liability is engaged" (our translation). It added that "EPA VNF is bound by an obligation of means concerning the maintenance of the lock" (our translation), and upheld the order against the establishment (CA Paris, pôle 4 ch. 10, 30 June 2022, No. 19/19649). Jurisdiction is in fact assessed at the date of the damage, and the dispute between a user and this industrial and commercial establishment then fell within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts (CAA Paris, 8th ch., 7 June 2018, No. 17PA02953).

Since 1 January 2013, Voies navigables de France has been a State public establishment of an administrative nature responsible for the operation and maintenance of navigable waterways (Article L. 4311-1 of the Transport Code). For damage occurring since then, the boatman brings the action before the administrative court, as a user of the public structure: the boatman proves the causal link between the lock and the damage, and the establishment is exonerated by proving normal maintenance of the structure, the victim's fault or force majeure. The Administrative Court of Appeal of Versailles thus rejected the claim of the operator of a barge whose propeller had been blocked in 2015 by a submerged cable in the chamber of the large lock at Pontoise: the link with the structure was established, but the lock had been dredged the previous year and the object, drifting and submerged, was undetectable (CAA Versailles, 5th ch., 2 December 2021, No. 19VE02161).

Legally, a barge remains movable property (Article 531 of the Civil Code). The judicial court of Mulhouse drew the conclusion that the buyer of a houseboat could not rely on the cooling-off period reserved for residential immovable property, noting that the alleged immobilisation had not been established, "such immobilisation not being capable of resulting from the mere mooring of the property" (our translation), and "the use of the property having no bearing on its legal classification as movable or immovable property" (our translation) (TJ Mulhouse, 1st civil ch., 15 April 2025, No. 22/00401). The buyer nevertheless obtained the return of her deposit on the basis of consumer law, the sellers having been treated as professionals.

For a vessel subject to registration, that is, a cargo vessel of at least twenty tonnes deadweight or any other vessel with a displacement of at least ten cubic metres (Article L. 4111-1 of the Transport Code), the transfer must be made by written contract (Article L. 4121-1 of the Transport Code). The deed can be enforced against third parties only once entered in the register, at the buyer's request (Article L. 4121-2 of the Transport Code). The vessel register is public and an extract of the entries must be on board (Article L. 4111-5 of the Transport Code; Article L. 4121-3 of the Transport Code).

Before signing, the firm has the register extract, registered mortgages, navigation certificate, latest hull survey report and repair history checked. If the vessel is moored on the public river domain, the position of its mooring falls under separate rules, set out on the firm's page on maritime law.

The seller guarantees hidden defects that make the vessel unfit for its use (Article 1641 of the Civil Code). The buyer has two years to bring an action, from the day the defect is discovered (Article 1648 of the Civil Code). The buyer may return the vessel and have the price refunded, or keep it and have part of the price returned (Article 1644 of the Civil Code); a seller who knew of the defect also owes all damages (Article 1645 of the Civil Code).

The Paris Court of Appeal recalled that "the warranty against latent defects does not require proof of fault by the seller" (our translation), and held that "the proximity of the first breakdowns to the date of sale sufficiently establishes that the defects predate the sale" (our translation). It did, however, reject the claim for loss of operating income, holding that "the appellant has not provided evidence in support of this claim" (our translation) (CA Paris, pôle 4 ch. 10, 9 February 2023, No. 20/01607).

For a barge unable to manoeuvre, the Court of Appeal of Bourges upheld the rescission of the sale, the lack of manoeuvrability "thus rendering it unfit for its normal purpose, that is, navigating on inland waterways in satisfactory conditions of safety" (our translation); according to the judgment, the Union certificate issued after the sale "does not appear capable of contradicting the findings made by the expert during the joint expert assessment carried out subsequently" (our translation) (CA Bourges, 1st ch., 6 February 2025, No. 24/00400).

The buyer's status as a professional weighs on the assessment of whether the defect was hidden. For a corroded barge that the purchaser had visited three times and had analysed before the sale, the Court of Appeal of Versailles noted that "the two companies ETPO and Mat Force are professionals in inland waterway and maritime transport and the continuation of the corrosion phenomenon and its consequences for safety are known to them as such" (our translation), held the corrosion to be apparent and upheld the dismissal of the purchaser's claims (CA Versailles, ch. com. 3-1, 30 September 2026, No. 24/00623).

Any registered vessel may be mortgaged, but only by a contractual mortgage, which may also encumber a vessel under construction (Article L. 4122-1 of the Transport Code). It is created in writing, on pain of nullity (Article L. 4122-3 of the Transport Code), and extends to items permanently attached to the vessel that belong to its owner (Article L. 4122-2 of the Transport Code).

Like the sale, the mortgage can be enforced against third parties only once entered in the register (Article L. 4121-2 of the Transport Code). A lender that undertook to register the mortgage is liable for its failure to do so: the loan agreement of 3 July 2009 providing for this registration, the Court of Appeal of Montpellier held, on the ground of contractual non-performance, that "the bank's failure to regularise the inland waterway mortgage is a contractual fault" (our translation), the sale of the vessel at a lower price having deprived the borrower of a chance to extinguish her debt, and ordered the bank to pay €30,000 in damages for that loss of a chance, the borrower remaining liable for the balance of the loan, with set-off (CA Montpellier, 4th civ. ch., 3 July 2025, No. 24/00257).

Protective measures against a registered vessel follow the French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures (Code des procédures civiles d'exécution), subject to international conventions (Article R. 4123-1 of the Transport Code). For the buyer, the register extract reveals the entries before signature; for the creditor, registration must follow the deed without delay.

The firm checks the entries, drafts or reviews the constituting deed and coordinates the sale with the release of existing security.

The inland waterway and lake insurance contract is governed, with a few exceptions, by the rules that the Insurance Code applies to maritime risks and transport (Article L. 171-1 of the Insurance Code). When the contract is concluded, the insured must accurately declare the circumstances known to them that enable the insurer to assess the risk (Article L. 172-19 of the Insurance Code). An omission or inaccurate declaration likely to significantly reduce the insurer's assessment of the risk renders the insurance void at the insurer's request; an insured who proves good faith nevertheless remains covered in proportion to the premium received, unless the insurer shows that it would not have covered the risk (Article L. 172-2 of the Insurance Code).

The Court of Cassation has held that "any omission by the insured likely to significantly reduce the insurer's assessment of the risk renders the insurance void, at the insurer's request, even where the questionnaire given by the insurer to the insured did not mention the circumstances not declared by the latter" (our translation), and that the provision "requires the insured to prove their own good faith" (our translation) (Cass. com., 15 February 2000, No. 97-18.043). It has also set the limit: "only the omission or inaccurate declaration of facts that had already occurred on the day the inland waterway insurance policy was concluded, and that are likely to significantly reduce the insurer's assessment of the risk, renders the insurance void" (our translation). It quashed the judgment that had ruled "on grounds drawn from the method of financing the acquisition of the insured property, which are unsuited to establishing circumstances likely to significantly reduce the insurer's assessment of the risk to be covered" (our translation) (Cass. com., 30 January 2019, No. 17-19.420).

Actions arising from the contract are subject to a two-year limitation period (Article L. 172-31 of the Insurance Code). An insurer that has paid the compensation acquires, up to the amount paid, the insured's rights arising from the insured damage, for example against the carrier or the party responsible for the collision (Article L. 172-29 of the Insurance Code).