Category Archives: 1980 Rome Convention

1980 Rome Convention – Commission contract for the carriage of goods

Judgment

C-305/13

23.10.2014

Parties

Jurisdiction

Formation

Judge Rapporteur

Advocate General

Subject-matter

Reference for a preliminary ruling

Haeger & Schmidt GmbH

v.

Mutuelles du Mans assurances and others

CJEU

3rd Ch.

C.Toader

/

1980 Rome Convention –

Transport contract

Key-words

Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations — Article 4(1), (2), (4) and (5) — Law applicable by default — Commission contract for the carriage of goods — Contract for the carriage of goods

Summary

A commission contract for the carriage of goods is a contract for the carriage of goods within the meaning of Article 4 (4) of the Rome Convention solely when the main purpose of the contract consists in the actual transport of the goods concerned, which it is for the referring court to verify.

Article 4(4) of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that, where the law applicable to a contract for the carriage of goods cannot be fixed under the special presumption laid down by this provision, it must be determined in accordance with the general rule laid down in Article 4(1), by identifying the country with which the contract is most closely connected.

In the case the agreement is not a contract for the carriage of goods and Article 4 (2) is therefore applicable, the latter must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is argued that a contract has a closer connection with a country other than the country the law of which is designated by the presumption laid down therein, the national court must compare the connections existing between that contract and, on the one hand, the country whose law is designated by the presumption and, on the other, the other country concerned. In so doing, the national court must take account of the overall circumstances, including the existence of other contracts connected with the contract in question.

Noteworthy

 Judgment to be approved, except the excessive role left to the derogatory rule laid down in Article 4 (5) of the Rome Convention.