Transport law lawyer in Paris

The situations are similar from one company to another. A shipper finds goods damaged, incomplete or delivered late. A carrier or a lessor is not paid. A freight forwarder is held liable for the fault of a subcontractor. A transport company receives a notice of minor offence, a record of a roadside check or a request from the URSSAF (social security contributions agency) concerning a subcontractor. In each case, the answer depends on the exact characterisation of the contracts and on compliance with very short time limits, notably the one-year limitation period, in principle, for actions arising from the contract of carriage (Article L. 133-6).

The firm acts upstream, to draft transport conditions, freight forwarding or subcontracting contracts and internal acceptance procedures, and downstream, once the dispute has arisen. It first reads the documents: order, consignment note, email exchanges, invoices. A contract of public carriage must indeed specify the nature of the transport, how it is to be performed and the obligations of each party (Article L. 1432-2 of the Transport Code). Where there is nothing in writing, standard-form contracts take over (Article L. 1432-4), which often changes the caps and time limits the parties expected.

Under the Transport Code, a freight forwarder is a person who, for a principal, organises the carriage of goods and has it carried out in its own name and at its own risk, choosing the modes of transport itself (Article L. 1411-1 of the Transport Code). The carrier performs the movement with its own means or those it hires. The name given to the contract or shown on the invoice is not enough: the legal criterion is the freedom to organise the operation and to choose its modes.

The distinction has concrete consequences. The freight forwarder guarantees that the shipment will arrive on the date set by the consignment note, unless force majeure is legally established (Article L. 132-4), and it guarantees loss and damage, unless that document provides otherwise or force majeure occurs (Article L. 132-5); it also answers for the intermediaries it selects (Article L. 132-6). A mere agent who merely passes on instructions answers for fraud and for faults committed in carrying out the mandate (Article 1992 of the Civil Code): its fault must then be established.

The useful clues are in the correspondence: an overall quotation covering several stages, the choice of carrier left to the organiser, a fixed price, a commitment to a final place of delivery. The firm reconstructs the chronology of the order to establish this capacity, or to challenge it where the company concerned only followed precise instructions.

Yes, in principle. The freight forwarder remains answerable for the intermediary to whom it hands the shipment (Article L. 132-6) and, more broadly, for damage and loss occurring during the operation it organised, absent a contrary clause in the consignment note and cases of force majeure (Article L. 132-5). The consignor therefore does not have to track down the foreign carrier or the failing subcontractor itself.

The Commercial Chamber dismissed the appeal of a freight forwarder that had undertaken to carry the goods to the consignee's warehouses: the court of appeal had inferred that it "was responsible, towards its own principal, for organising the entire transport" (our translation) (Cass. com., 27 September 2016, No. 14-29.644), regardless of the contract concluded by a substitute company. The solution is unfavourable to the freight forwarder, which must then bring its own recourse action within one month of the action brought against it (Article L. 133-6).

The freight forwarder may also answer for its own personal fault. In a case of air carriage of furniture intended for a trade fair, the Court of Cassation upheld the judges' finding that "Danzas did not take care to check that this merchandise had indeed arrived in Phoenix on 20 May as it had undertaken to do" (our translation) (Cass. com., 17 September 2002, No. 00-18.085). The firm therefore examines both bases, guarantee for the acts of others and personal fault, before quantifying the claim or organising the defence.

Not necessarily. A public road carrier that does not perform a transport itself may hire an industrial vehicle with a driver; the lessor may then claim what it is owed directly from the consignor as well as from the consignee, who are answerable for the hire price (Article L. 3223-2 of the Transport Code). This mechanism protects the lessor when its customer, a carrier, does not pay.

The customer must still be a carrier. Transport organised by a person on its own account is not public carriage (Article L. 1000-3 of the Transport Code). The Court of Cassation upheld the court of appeal's finding that a waste trading company, "having hired vehicles with drivers to carry waste in order to run its main business, had carried out the transport on its own account and not as a public road carrier" (our translation) (Cass. com., 3 April 2019, No. 18-11.242). The unpaid lessor lost its action against the company from which the waste was collected: the decision is unfavourable to the lessor, and is presented here as such.

Before hiring out, the lessor should check its customer's entry in the national electronic register of road transport undertakings and the real purpose of its activity, and require guarantees where the customer carries its own products. The firm can draft these clauses or assess, after non-payment, which debtor can still be pursued.

No, where the law forbids it. In domestic carriage, the carrier bears loss and damage, apart from inherent defect and force majeure, and the Code voids any stipulation that would relieve it of this, whether it appears on the transport document or in a tariff (Article L. 133-1). A limit on compensation is not an exclusion of liability: where the standard-form contract that actually applies or a valid stipulation sets a cap, that cap gives way in the face of fraud or inexcusable fault, the only fault the law treats as equivalent to fraud (Article L. 133-8).

In international road carriage, the CMR Convention itself governs compensation for delay (Article 23, paragraph 5) and makes void any stipulation derogating from it (Article 41, paragraph 1), provisions cited in the judgment mentioned below. A company whose parcel, carried from France to Belgium, had been damaged on delivery was met with the general terms printed on the back of the consignment note. The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment that had applied them, "whereas a contractual clause that exempts the carrier from all liability for delay is void, the court of appeal infringed the aforementioned provisions" (our translation) (Cass. com., 9 May 2018, No. 17-13.030).

The issue goes beyond delay alone. Before giving up a claim, the consignor should have the regime applicable to the transport checked, together with the clause relied on and its compatibility with that regime. The firm carries out this review and quantifies what can be claimed despite the cap.

One year, in principle: that is the time allowed to act against the carrier for loss, damage or delay, subject to cases of fraud or infidelity, and for all other actions arising from the contract of carriage, whether directed at the carrier, the freight forwarder, the consignor or the consignee (Article L. 133-6). A carrier claiming its price is therefore subject to the same period as a shipper claiming compensation.

The starting point varies. In the case of total loss, time is counted from the date set for delivery; otherwise, from actual delivery or from the offer to deliver, according to the same article. In a removal partly destroyed by fire, the Court of Cassation quashed the ruling of judges who had not examined whether a letter from the removal company asking for instructions about the furniture left in its possession contained "an offer of delivery marking the starting point of the limitation period" (our translation) (Cass. com., 25 November 2020, No. 18-24.585).

The guarantor who is sued then has one month to act against the party that owes it a guarantee, a period that runs from the day the action is brought against it. A mere amicable negotiation does not, on its own, interrupt these periods, whereas a claim brought before the court, even by urgent application (référé), does (Article 2241 of the Civil Code): the firm sets the deadline when the file is opened and, if necessary, prepares the act that preserves it.

Yes, subject to a condition. An insurer that has compensated the consignor or the consignee exercises its rights against the carrier; but settlement often comes late, when the one-year period is already running (Article L. 133-6). The Court of Cassation accepts that the insurer may act before that one-year period expires, even without yet being subrogated on the day of its writ, provided it pays the compensation before the trial court rules: the action is admissible "against the party responsible for the damage for which it owes cover" (our translation) (Cass. com., 22 February 2017, No. 15-20.923).

This solution allows the insurer to preserve its recourse without waiting for the end of the expert assessment. It assumes, however, that payment has actually been made before the decision on the merits, and that the receipt establishes the extent of the subrogation.

For the insured, the question is different: its own claim against the carrier, for the deductible or the loss not covered, remains bound by the same period. The firm coordinates the two actions, that of the insured and that of the insurer, so that no part of the loss becomes time-barred.

Where an offence recorded by an automatic device is committed with a vehicle for which a legal entity holds the registration certificate or which it holds as keeper, its legal representative must state to the authority named on the notice, by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt or electronically, the identity and address of the driver within forty-five days of the notice being sent or handed over, except in cases of theft, plate misuse or other force majeure (Article L. 121-6 of the Road Traffic Code). The rule also applies to the individual who registered the vehicle as a legal entity. Failing this, a separate fine for a minor offence is incurred.

The naming must be genuine. The Court of Cassation holds that "this obligation is fulfilled only if the naming of the individual who was actually driving the vehicle at the time of the offence rests on probative evidence" (our translation) (Cass. crim., 6 June 2023, No. 22-87.212). A purely formal naming, later disputed by the employee named, therefore does not exonerate the company.

The company itself may be prosecuted. The Criminal Chamber held that this provision "does not preclude the criminal liability of the legal entity also being sought, under the second, for this offence, committed on its behalf by that representative" (our translation) (Cass. crim., 16 September 2025, No. 24-86.659), applying the liability of legal entities (Article 121-2 of the Criminal Code). The firm recommends keeping vehicle assignments, schedules and tachograph data up to date, as these support a probative naming, and can assist the company or its director before the police court.

Yes. Every road driver is forbidden to take the normal weekly rest on board the vehicle, and the employer must ensure that the organisation of drivers' work respects this right (Article L. 3313-3 of the Transport Code). The director is liable to the same penalties where, as principal, they allowed the offence to be committed by failing to take measures to ensure compliance (Article L. 3315-6).

The Criminal Chamber dismissed the appeal of a transport company convicted after a check: it argued that only the driver could be prosecuted, "without providing any evidence that the principal had ensured, through its instructions and checks, that its employee actually complied with the provisions on the right to normal weekly rest" (our translation) (Cass. crim., 31 March 2026, No. 25-82.050). The decision is unfavourable to the company, and applies whatever the carrier's nationality.

The defence is prepared before the check. Written instructions on rest, accommodation bookings, checking of records, internal sanctions for breaches: these are the elements, and not a mere assertion, that the judge examines. The firm helps the company document its organisation and assists it when a record of offence is drawn up.

Any person who enters into a contract for services above a minimum amount set by decree checks, on signing and then periodically until performance ends, that its counterparty is registered and meets its social security filing obligations (Article L. 8222-1 of the French Labour Code). A principal ordering transport is subject to it like any other. It is deemed to have carried out these checks if, on signing and then every six months, it obtains a certificate from the collection body issued less than six months earlier, the authenticity of which it checks with that body, and, where registration is compulsory, proof of registration (Article D. 8222-5 of the Labour Code); for a counterparty established or domiciled abroad, the list of documents is different (Article D. 8222-7).

Failure to do so is costly. A principal that has not carried out these checks is jointly liable for the contributions, penalties and surcharges owed by a subcontractor reported for undeclared work, and the Court of Cassation has held that "the collection body may choose to pursue only the principal for recovery of the compulsory contributions, penalties and surcharges owed by its subcontractor" (our translation) (Cass. 2e civ., 5 June 2025, No. 22-23.817), the court seised not being required to join the subcontractor to the proceedings. The solution is unfavourable to the principal. It retains the right to challenge the regularity of the procedure and the merits and due date of the sums, and may rely on irregularities in the assessment made against its subcontractor; it cannot, however, raise against the collection body "those affecting the formal notice served, where applicable, on its subcontractor" (our translation) (same judgment).

In road transport, a check of the subcontractor's registration is added: companies established in France that carry out public road carriage of goods, removals or the hire of industrial vehicles with a driver must be entered in the national electronic register of road transport undertakings (Article R. 3211-8 of the Transport Code), made for the application of the conditions of access to the profession (Article L. 3211-1). For a subcontractor established abroad, the documents to request depend on its country of establishment and are checked case by case. The firm can draw up a list of documents to collect and a suspension clause in case of default.

The contract comes first. Where there is nothing in writing, the parties' relations are by operation of law those of the applicable standard-form contract (Article L. 1432-4 of the Transport Code); for the subcontracting of public road carriage of goods, this is the standard-form contract set out in Annex IX of the third regulatory part of the Transport Code (Article D. 3224-3).

The ordinary law on sudden termination does not always apply in addition. Sitting in mixed formation, in a case concerning the hire of an industrial vehicle with a driver, the Commercial Chamber held that, where the parties have not stipulated a notice period, whether for lack of a written contract or because the contract is silent, this period is set by the standard-form contract and that "The provisions of Article L. 442-6, I, 5°, now L. 442-1, II, of the Commercial Code then do not apply" (our translation); the same is true where the contract expressly refers to the clause of the standard-form contract. If the contract itself stipulates the notice period, the sudden termination regime applies (Article L. 442-1, II, of the Commercial Code), but the party ending the relationship who gave notice at least equal to that of the standard-form contract in force on the day of notification "cannot be held liable on the basis of that provision" (our translation) (Cass. com., 1 July 2026, No. 24-19.356). The decision is unfavourable to the displaced lessor, who had received seven months' notice. The same chamber upheld the exclusion for freight forwarding (Cass. com., 23 September 2026, No. 24-21.950).

A displaced subcontractor therefore should first check what the contract provides on notice, then the real length of the relationship and the notice actually given, without forgetting the one-year period: in the freight forwarding case, the action based on the notice under the standard-form contract had been held time-barred under Article L. 133-6, and the appeal was dismissed. The principal, for its part, is well advised to notify the termination in writing, with notice at least equal to that of the standard-form contract in force on the day of notification. The firm examines these points before any claim or any notification.