In this part of the site we publish details of legal judgments concerning rail transport and related areas of law, statements from public authorities and legal advice from the CIT General Secretariat on the practical legal issues that arise in daily life.
Select a category (damages, consignment note, etc.) to get access to the corresponding articles.
Which carriers have to take part in sharing compensation paid out for loss and damage to international freight traffic?
Chapter 3 of the AIM has been based on two fundamental principles since 1 July 2006:
- if a carrier or one of his sub-contractors is liable for loss and damage within the meaning of the AIM, that carrier is required to bear the compensation paid to the customer (see point 3.3.2 AIM);
- if there is no carrier liable within the meaning of the AIM, compensation is to be shared between the carriers having taken part in the carriage (participating carriers). Non-participating carriers (see point 3.3.3 AIM) however, are excluded.
Because members of the CIT held differing views on how that point of the AIM should be applied, its phraseology was clarified further in the 1 July 2011 edition; no change was made to the principles however:
To the extent that the compensation cannot be charged to one or more carriers liable, it is to be allocated to the carriers taking part in the carriage (participating carriers). Excluded from this are carriers who have accepted neither the goods nor the consignment note (non-participating carriers).
In other words only those carriers who have not participated in the execution of carriage because it was terminated en route (total loss or damage, seizure of the consignment by customs, etc.) are excluded from participating in the allocation of the compensation paid out.
For further information on this subject, see circular letter CIT 27/2011 dated 15 September 2011.
Henri.Trolliet(at)cit-rail.org / Original: FR / 2011-09-17
Does the compensation to be paid to the customer in the event of the loss of the goods also have to include the value added tax (VAT) on the goods? Is the situation different for excise duties?
A clear distinction must be made between excise duties and VAT. Excise duty is a duty which in general is imposed on alcohol and tobacco; it is based on quantity and is only levied on final sale of the goods (or notification that the goods are missing). VAT, by contrast, is an indirect tax on consumption of all types.
In accordance with Article 30 § 4 CIM, VAT must be considered as “another sum paid in relation to the carriage of the goods lost” and the person entitled must be compensated if he has already paid the VAT.
By contrast, excise duties for goods carried under a procedure suspending those duties do not have to be paid to the person entitled.
Henri.Trolliet(at)cit-rail.org / Original: FR / 2011-08-17
To what extent is the carrier liable for wettage damage to goods transported in a closed wagon?
Two cases need to be distinguished when goods being carried in a closed wagon are damaged by wettage:
a) The person entitled under the contract of carriage (consignee or consignor) is not the keeper of the wagon in question
In accordance with Article 23 § 1 CIM, the carrier is liable to the person entitled for the damage. Only where there is an obvious fault in the wagon can there be any question of sharing the liability between the carrier and the person entitled on the basis of Article 23 § 2 CIM1. It is possible the carrier may have recourse against the wagon keeper on the basis of the contract of use, but that doesn’t concern the person entitled under the contract of carriage
b) The person entitled under the contract of carriage (consignee or consignor) is also the wagon keeper In accordance with Article 23 § 1 CIM, the carrier is relieved of liability (fault of the person entitled – inadequate maintenance of his wagon) (1).
(1) Also see the commentary by Allégret, excerpt from Juris-Classeur Commercial, volume 685, Note 57
Henri.Trolliet(at)cit-rail.org Original: DE
To what extent is the carrier responsible for the consequences of failure to carry out the instructions of the person entitled or failure to carry out the instructions properly where circumstances prevent carriage?
Article 22 CIM makes no provision for liability in connection with circumstances preventing carriage or delivery.
However the similarity between subsequent orders and instructions in consequence of circumstances preventing carriage and delivery justifies the assumption that liability issues should be handled in the same way. It can therefore be assumed that in both cases fault on the part of the carrier creates a liability but that the compensation payable does not exceed the compensation to be paid in the case of the complete loss of the goods (Article 19 § 6 CIM).
We must note the need to make Article 22 CIM more specific in the next revision of the CIM.
Henri.Trolliet(at)cit-rail.org Original: DE
Does a forecast hailstorm represent a circumstance which the carrier was unable to avoid and the consequences of which he was unable to prevent?
During a national rail transport movement in France, a hailstorm which had been forecast by meteorologists caused damage to Renault vehicles which were being carried on a train which was stabled at Nîmes marshalling yard. Over 300 vehicles were damaged and the resulting amount of the damage was ca. €400,000.
The Cour d’Appel de Versailles has decided in the second instance, having regard to article 133-1 of the Commercial Code, amongst other things, that the carrier cannot claim relief on the basis of force majeure, as the damage to the vehicles was both foreseeable and avoidable, as the railway company could have moved the wagons out of the hailstorm area on a special train, or could at least have fitted protective covers over the vehicles. With rationale based on foreseeability and avoidability, this interpretation of French law is consistent with COTIF law, according to which relief of liability then results if the damage is caused “by circumstances which the carrier could not avoid and the consequences of which he was unable to prevent” (Art. 23 § 2 CIM). It has to be emphasised, though, that the Commercial Code foresees no preferential grounds for release from liability in the sense of the CIM Uniform Rules, such as e.g. carriage in in open wagons (Art. 23 § 3 lit. a CIM).
Above and beyond this, the Cour d’Appel ruled that the carrier cannot rely on contractually agreed limits of liability due to his gross negligence. International railway transport law also includes a similar regulation in Article 36 CIM, according to which the carrier loses his right to limited liability ex lege – pursuant to Article 33 CIM – having behaved recklessly and with knowledge that such loss or damage would probably result. The deciding factor in this case is the fact that the damage would not have occurred had the carrier’s duties been properly fulfilled (Article 36 in fine CIM and tenor 1 of the verdict of the Cour d’Appel, Versailles of 2nd July 2009) (1).
(1) Excerpts printed in the OTIF Bulletin of International Carriage by Rail 1/2010, p. 17 et seq. for the English version.
Erik.Evtimov(at)cit-rail.org Original: DE
Are the costs of experts “other sums” within the meaning of Article 30 § 4 CIM?
This issue concerns the external liability of the carrier to customers for the “other sums paid in relation to the carriage of the goods lost”. The provisions of Article 30 § 4 also apply mutatis mutandis to damage to goods in accordance with Article 32 § 4 CIM.
Compensation for the goods lost is composed of two parts. Firstly, Article 30 § 1 CIM provides for compensation in accordance with the current market price of the goods or, failing that, with the usual value of the goods lost at the point they were accepted.
Article 30 § 4 CIM provides for the second part of the total amount; carriage charges, customs duties and similar amounts paid out in relation to the carriage of the goods lost. Under “other costs” the costs for, inter alia, escorting the consignment, repairing the packaging, (not however for the packaging of the goods itself since that is included in the value of the goods) as well as the costs of examination of the contents of the consignment by the courts or by an expert (1).
The costs of experts therefore fall within the scope of Articles 30 § 4 CIM and 32 § 4 CIM as “other sums paid in relation to the carriage of the goods” lost or damaged. Fees for experts, other costs of establishing loss and damage together with court and legal costs are to be shared between the participating carriers in accordance with point 3.3.6 AIM. They form part of the compensation to be paid to the customer for the loss of or damage to his goods.
(1) Also see Nánássy, Das internationale Eisenbahnrecht, Wien 1956, [International Railway Law, Vienna, 1956] page 607 in fi ne with a reference to other authors.
Erik.Evtimo(at)cit-rail.org Original: DE
Who is in charge of rectifying loads ?
If goods are loaded by the consignor, then he is responsible in accordance with Article 13 § 2 CIM for all the consequences of defective loading and in particular for any loss and damage sustained in consequence.
A reference to Article 13 § 2 CIM is made in work sheet 05-03 GTM-CIT (on collection of charges) and the work-sheet also specifi es that the carrier is to raise charges against the consignor for the costs arising from the action he had to take because of defective loading by the consignor.
Nathalie.Greinus(at)cit-rail.org Original: DE
In the case of defective loading by the consignor, can the costs of adjusting the load be charged to the consignor by any successive carrier (for example, the fourth in the movement chain)?
If the carrier who adjusts the load cannot recover the costs from the consignor, does the AIM allow him to allocate them to the participating railway undertakings?
These two questions must be considered together. In considering them, a distinction must be made between the external relationship with the consignor and the internal relationship between the carriers.
In the absence of any other agreement, Article 13 § 1 CIM explicitly covers the responsibility of the consignor for the loading of goods in full wagonloads. Under that article, the carrier has a right of recourse against the consignor for defective loading.
Chapter 5 AIM covers the internal relationship. In accordance with that chapter, costs arising under Article 13 § 2 CIM which cannot be charged to the consignor or for which no carrier can be held liable within the meaning of point 3.3.2.2 AIM are to be allocated in accordance with point 3.3 AIM. Irrecoverable charges for transhipment or adjustment of loads are to be allocated in the same way as amounts shown on the consignment note which cannot be recovered.
Even so, can the consignor escape liability by claiming that the carrier is obliged to check the load before departure (see GTM CIT 02-01)?
Enforcement of the appropriate rights and obligations is clearly laid down in the GTC-CIM (points 6, 10, 11). Based on those points, GTM-CIT 02-01 provides for the carrier to check the load to ensure the safety of operations, a technical/operational obligation for the carrier. There is currently no practical or legal reason to reinforce the liability of the carrier by such a legal presumption. Indeed, that would confl ict with the clear phraseology of Article 13 § 1 CIM in which both contractual liability (in sentence 1) and statutory liability (in sentence 2) are clearly defined.
Erik.Evtimov(at)cit-rail.org Original: DE
Who is liable for damage?
I. The circumstances: movement of upholstered furniture in railway owned wagons. On arrival, damage by wettage was discovered. The cause, given by the formal report which was made out and by the damage report, was a defective roof to the wagon.
II. Assertions by the parties:
In the view of the destination carrier, the forwarding carrier is liable in accordance with point 27 para. 1 GCU because the leak in the wagon roof demonstrates a fault by the wagon keeper. Since a carrier liable within the meaning of 3.3.2.1 AIM has been clearly identifi ed, there can be no allocation of compensation.
Initially, the forwarding carrier declines all liability because under his national law, only the consignor is responsible for loading. After further exchanges of letters, the forwarding carrier acknowledges liability in principle, but, because the time and place of the damage to the goods is unknown, demands allocation of the compensation to all the successive carriers in accordance with point 3.3.1 AIM.
III. CIT General Secretariat’s commentary
The AIM only provides for the allocation of compensation on the basis of liability under the CIM (point 3.1.1 AIM). The various legal relationships accordingly are as follows:
Legal relationship 1: carrier-customer
The formal report which was made out and photos attached make it quite clear that the furniture was damaged by wettage. The carrier is strictly liable to the customer for this damage in accordance with the CIM Uniform Rules (Article 23 CIM).
Legal relationship 2: carrier-wagon keeper
The General Contract of Use for Wagons (GCU) applies to the relationship between the carrier and the wagon keeper. Under that contract, the wagon keeper is liable for loss and damage caused by the wagon if he is at fault (point 27 para. 1 GCU). Fault cannot be presumed, it must be proved. The formal report which was made out is not enough to provide this proof.
Legal relationship 3: between the carriers
Within the internal relationship between the carriers, the question is now how this compensation for the damage should be shared out. For allocating compensation under the CIM, members of the CIT have concluded the Agreement concerning the Relationships between Carriers in respect of International Freight Traffi c by Rail (AIM) (Article 52 CIM refers). The furniture was carried by successive carriers who apply the AIM by virtue of being members of the CIT. Under the AIM, if the carrier liable cannot be explicitly identifi ed in accordance with point 3.3.2 AIM, then the compensation is to be shared between the carriers in accordance with point 3.3.3 AIM using the allocation key given in point 3.3.7 AIM.
Summary
Unlike the CIM and AIM, if goods are damaged by a wagon the GCU only provides for liability in the case of fault. Fault cannot be presumed a priori but must be authoritatively proved in each individual case. The formal report simply documents and localises loss and damage, it does not however provide evidence for the carrier being at fault because a faulty wagon caused damage to the goods.
Erik.Evimov(at)cit-rail.org Original: DE
Because the points moved under a moving train, a wagon was damaged. How should the damage done to the wagon be calculated?
The answer to this question depends on who the wagon keeper can or wants to take legal action against.
If the wagon keeper was also the carrier and infrastructure user at the time, the legal relationship with the infrastructure manager who caused the damage is exclusively determined by the contract of use in question, itself based on the CUI Uniform Rules. Unlike the regulations for personal loss and injury (Articles 11-14 CUI), the CUI Uniform Rules contain no rules for calculating damage to property and hence national law applies (Article 8 COTIF). If national law provides no solution, it is conceivable that a court would refer to the principles set down in the GCU, relying on industry custom and practice and legal coherence.
If the wagon keeper was not also the carrier and infrastructure user at the time, he can take legal action both against (a) the wagon user and (b) the infrastructure manager.
a) In the fi rst case, the CUV Uniform Rules and the General Contract of Use of Wagons (GCU) are applied. Since, under Article 9 § 2 CUV, the infrastructure manager is an auxiliary of the wagon user, the infrastructure manager is liable for the damage to the wagon in accordance with the appropriate GCU rules for calculating damage.
b) The second legal relationship has to be judged against (non contractual) national law since there can be no contractual basis. If this should give no clear answer, it would once again be conceivable and natural for the judge to refer to the GCU rules.
In summary:
If the wagon keeper only wants or only can take legal action against the infrastructure manager, national law applies. If national law has no rules for calculating loss, then the GCU rules for calculating loss may possibly be used by a judge needing a precedent.
If the wagon keeper was not himself also the carrier and user of the infrastructure, he can take action against the wagon user and enforce damage calculation under GCU principles in that way.
Erik.Evtimov(at)cit-rail. Org Original: DE
A train formed up in Basel ready to transit Switzerland was incorrectly moved by railway undertaking 2 instead of railway undertaking 1. What is the legal situation?
In transport law, railway undertaking 1 remains the carrier and therefore liable to the customer. However, legally the goods are to be regarded as misrouted (in accordance with AIM Chapter 6). In accordance with the AIM, railway undertaking 1 has a duty to pay railway undertaking 2 for the transport costs which arise. Railway undertaking 2 is a person performing a service without authority and “obliged to perform the activity undertaken in a way that corresponds to the assumed intent of the other party and to his advantage” (Article 419 Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht [Swiss national law]). On the other hand, railway undertaking 1 has to compensate railway undertaking 2 for “all expenditure which is necessary or desirable and appropriate to the circumstances including interest and to relieve him of obligations undertaken to the same extent and to compensate him for other losses as decided by the judge” (Article 422 para. 1 Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht).
Erik.Evtimov(at)cit-rail.org Original: DE
May a carrier who notices that the details of the consignee on the consignment note are incorrect (consignee unknown) on handover of the consignment from another carrier refuse to accept the consignment?
Incorrect consignee details on the consignment note do not constitute grounds for refusing to accept a consignment in accordance with working sheet 03-02 of the CIT Freight Traffic Manual (GTM-CIT). The receiving carrier is not therefore entitled to refuse to accept the consignment. On the other hand, he is authorised to initiate the procedure for “circumstances preventing carriage” within the meaning of Article 20 CIM and working sheet 05-01 GTM-CIT, if it is then clear that the consignment cannot be delivered to the consignee.
Henri.Trolliet(at)cit-rail.org Original: FR / 2011-12-19
May an unsealed wagon be refused when being handed over to another carrier?
A carrier may refuse to accept a consignment on handover in the event of a “sealing irregularity” (see GTM-CIT working sheet 03-02). “Sealing irregularity” should be understood as including missing and broken seals (see GTM-CIT working sheet 05-01).
Henri.Trolliet(at)cit-rail.org Original: DE
Carriers moving traffic subject to the CIM under the joint contract regime choose not to hand over traffic from one carrier to the next at the frontier between two countries (which is also the interface between the networks of the two infrastructure managers) but rather hand over traffic five kilometres further on, for operating reasons.
When does liability for the goods change from one carrier to the next?
There is no standard answer to this question and the issue must be left to the contractual freedom of the carriers. That is why the CIT Freight Traffic Manual is limited to saying that the point, the time and the arrangements for hand-over of consignments between carriers are fixed by agreements concluded between carriers (see working sheets 03-01 and 03-02 GTM-CIT).
Henri.Trolliet(at)cit-rail. Original: FR
Again and again, the CIT General Secretariat is asked which carrier is to be shown on the consignment note and where. There is particular interest in when and how carriers who act on behalf of other carriers are to be shown.
The answer is relatively simple if we keep the various categories of carrier in mind:
Logical differentiation between the boxes on the consignment note follows from this summary of the types of carrier:
The contractual carrier is always shown in box 58 of the CIM consignment note no matter whether he is also a (successive) carrier and what role he plays in the chain of carriers.
All the successive carriers are shown in box 57 of the CIM consignment note (with the exception of the carrier who is the contractual carrier) together with all the substitute carriers.
Carriers who are auxiliaries are not shown in any of the boxes of the CIM consignment note.
Thomas.Leimgruber(at)cit-rail.org Original: DE
How should the distances to be used for calculating carriage charges be determined, in particular for the points at which the consignment is taken over and delivered?
The explanatory notes for the use of the CIM consignment note under the CIM Uniform Rules 1980 provided for the tariff distance between the stations and frontier points corresponding to the beginning and end of the charging section to be entered on the consignment note. An amended version of this text was adopted for the explanatory notes to box 76 in Appendix 2 to the GLV-CIM. The reference was amended just to refer to “points” rather than “frontier points” to take account of two new factors:
- the points at which consignments are handed over between carriers may be within a country (and therefore no longer just at a frontier) and these hand-over points may be the points that determine the beginning and end of a charging section;
- likewise, the points at which consignments are taken over and delivered rather than stations may be the points that determine the beginning or the end of a charging section.
These provisions do not, however, fix the way in which the tariff distances between the stations or points corresponding to the beginning and end of a charging section are calculated. That issue is left to railway undertakings to decide. Railway undertakings members of the UIC have agreed to link every point at which goods are taken over or delivered with a station. They have also agreed that the distances defined for that station are also to be used for the points of taking over or delivery linked to it – see UIC leaflet 219 O, point 1.1 paragraph 4.
Henri.Trolliet(at)cit-rail.org Original: FR
Which costs (including ancillary charges) may be agreed as being suitable to be entered on a CIM consignment note and to what extent do they then need to be checked.
For international freight traffic by rail, Article 10 § 1 CIM provides that “unless otherwise agreed between the consignor and the carrier, the charges (the carriage charge, ancillary charges shall be paid by the consignor” [Note that the English language CIM has serious mistranslations in this article]. To clarify how this provision is to be implemented, Article 8.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Carriage for International Freight Traffic by Rail (GTC-CIM) specifies that “an entry in the consignment note in accordance with the GLV-CIM shall indicate who is responsible for which charges”. Point 5.2 of the CIM Consignment Manual (GLV-CIM) lists the options in detail.
The second sentence of Article 8.3 GTC-CIM also provides that the Customer Agreement may specify which of the pay- ment instructions listed in Article 5.2 GTC-CIM must be used and/or if further options (lists of charges in the tariff applicable, for example) are permitted. This rule is subsidiary and must be interpreted as supplementing the first sentence of Article 8.3 GTC-CIM.
Erik.Evtimov(at)cit-rail.org Original: DE
What is the procedure when a carrier weighs a wagon at the request of the consignor to check the tare weight in order that the weight of the consignment can be established but then fi nds a signifi cant difference from the tare weight painted on the wagon?
There are no standardised international rules to cover these cases; accordingly procedures should follow the rules laid down by the undertaking in question.
General rules for the examination of consignments are shown on work sheet 02-07 of the CIT Freight Traffi c Manual (GTMCIT). However these rules only cover checking the information provided by the consignor on the consignment note.
Henri.Trolliet(at)cit-rail.org Original: DE
Who is responsible for handling claims for CIM/SMGS traffic?
In principle, submitting and handling claims for damages for total or partial loss of or damage to goods consigned with a CIM/SMGS consignment note are governed by the provisions of Articles 43-45 CIM and Article 29 SMGS.
These basic principles are nevertheless supplemented by specific provisions in point 12.3 of the GLV CIM/SMGS and in Appendix 22 SMGS.
Claims submitted in the area in which the CIM applies are to be sent to the competent carrier in accordance with the CIM Uniform Rules. If the competent carrier establishes that the cause of the loss or damage did not lie or did not only lie within the area in which the CIM contract of carriage applies, he is to assess the claim in terms of liability within the CIM area and notify the customer of his decision. For subsequent handling in the area in which the SMGS applies, he is to forward the claim, including all the documentation submitted, to the competent SMGS forwarding or destination railway and notify the customer that he has done so. As soon as the competent carrier has received the result of the handling of the claim from the SMGS railway he is to inform the customer of the final outcome of the handling of his claim.
An analogous process is adopted for claims submitted in the area in which the SMGS applies.
The inclusion of the addresses of claims departments for CIM/SMGS traffic in Appendix 9 to the GLV CIM/SMGS and Appendix 22 to the SMGS ensures that claims handling is transparent for customers.
Erik.Evtimov(at)cit-rail.org Original DE
2011-07-13
May a customer apply a “loose and gravity shunting prohibited” label to each wagon as a precautionary measure?
In Appendix 16 of the CIT Freight Traffic Manual (GTM-CIT), it is stated that the “loose and gravity shunting prohibited” label must be applied to wagons
If this is not the case, no such label may be applied. To protect the goods, however, it can be agreed that a label be attached to each wagon. In Item 2 in fact, the GTM-CIT states that deviations from the manual can also be agreed with the undertakings involved in the shipment.
Nathale.Greinus(at)cit-rail.org Original: DE 2012-02-27
May the consignor ask to amend the information shown on the CIM consignment note in boxes 13 (Commercial specification), 14 (Number of customer agreement or tariff) or 20 (Payment instructions)?
Article 18 § 1 CIM contains a list of the changes which the consignor or consignee may make to the contract of carriage. This list is not nevertheless exhaustive. The same comment applies to the list shown on the “Subsequent orders” form defined in Appendix 7 GLV-CIM. The consignor or consignee may thus ask for other changes to be made to the contract of carriage, for example a change to the information contained in the consignment note boxes listed above.
The extent to which such requests for changes have to be conducted is to be decided case by case on the basis of Article 19 §§ 3 and 4 CIM.
Henri.Trolliet(at)cit-rail.org / Original: FR / 2011-09-17
Locomotives with power disconnected (dead locomotives) are increasingly being moved in freight trains to allow them to be used for shunting operations elsewhere. This raises the question of whether the Uniform Rules concerning Contracts of Use of Vehicles in International Rail Traffic (CUV-Appendix D to COTIF) apply to these locomotives hauled dead.
In accordance with Article 1, the CUV Uniform Rules apply to “bior multilateral contracts concerning the use of railway vehicles as means of transport for carriage in accordance with the CIV Uniform Rules and in accordance with the CIM Uniform Rules”. In the German version of Article 2 (b) CUV, vehicle (Wagen) is defined in terms of a “Fahrzeug”, a somewhat wider term. Whilst “vehicle” in English would not exclude a dead locomotive, the French definition (which prevails in COTIF in the event of divergence, in accordance with Article 45 § 1 second sentence COTIF) is somewhat narrower and would seem to exclude a locomotive not provided with a means of traction. Nevertheless, the objective and purpose of this provision is primarily to define a vehicle as a means of transport for the purposes of carriage.
So the question of which other rules can be applied to locomotives moved dead-in-tow still remains.
Firstly, it must be noted that “not provided with a means of traction” therefore excludes “traction”. This latter consists of making traction available for hauling loaded or empty vehicles within a specific time band and for a specific price (see point 1 of the GTC traction).
In consequence, it would seem apparent that such cases must be subsumed within Article 24 CIM Uniform Rules. In accordance with this article, dead locomotives are to be consigned as goods and for international freight traffic by rail, a CIM consignment note is to be used. In accordance with Article 24 § 1 CIM, the carrier is liable for the loss of or damage to the vehicle (in this case, the dead locomotive) or its removable parts during the period between taking the vehicle over and delivering it as well as for exceeding the transit period. On the other hand, the carrier is not liable for the loss of accessories (Article 24 § 2 CIM).
This interpretation is also supported by an earlier and teleologic interpretation, that applied to Article 5 § 1 (b) first sentence CIM 1980. The standard supplementary provision for this article (DCU 2 point 2 of 1 January 1993) included locomotives in the definition of railway vehicles running on their own wheels.
Erik.Evtimov(at)cit-rail.org Original: DE
What is the procedure when a carrier weighs a wagon at the request of the consignor to check the tare weight in order that the weight of the consignment can be established but then fi nds a signifi cant difference from the tare weight painted on the wagon?
There are no standardised international rules to cover these cases; accordingly procedures should follow the rules laid down by the undertaking in question.
General rules for the examination of consignments are shown on work sheet 02-07 of the CIT Freight Traffi c Manual (GTMCIT). However these rules only cover checking the information provided by the consignor on the consignment note.
Henri.Trolliet(at)cit-rail.org Original: DE
How is the movement of tank wagons with residues organised? Are they moved as means of transport under the CUV/GCU regime or as goods under the CIM regime?
If a tank wagon cannot be emptied fully for technical reasons, a residue will remain; despite the residue, the wagon may be regarded as empty. Accordingly, it may be consigned as a means of transport with a CUV wagon note.
As far as we are aware, there is no internationally agreed standard provision which sets a maximum quantity for residues such that above that level the tank wagon has to be regarded as loaded and consigned with a CIM consignment note.
If the residue is in fact the residue of a consignment of dangerous goods, the provisions of the RID (see 5.4.1.1.6.1) apply both to the empty journey of the wagon and the details which have to be entered on the transport document [i.e. the CIM consignment note, the CUV wagon note, or the transport document for empty uncleaned means of containment (see point 15 GLV-CIM)].
Nathalie.Greinus(at)cit-rail.org Original: DE
The consignee has accepted the consignment note for a consignment subject to the RID but hasn’t taken delivery of the goods.
Are there “circumstances preventing delivery”? Who is liable for these dangerous goods at the delivery point?
By accepting the consignment note, the consignee becomes a party to the contract of carriage. The carrier may not therefore start the procedure for circumstances preventing delivery if the consignee doesn’t accept the goods. To cover this situation, the CIT Freight Traffi c Manual (GTM-CIT) specifi es that circumstances have not prevented delivery if the consignee accepts the consignment note but does not take delivery of the goods (see working sheet 08-01 GTM-CIT).
In accordance with Article 17 § 4 CIM, the person entitled may refuse to accept the goods even when he has received the consignment note, so long as an examination which he has demanded in order to establish alleged loss or damage has not been carried out. In other words, the consignee becomes a party to the contract of carriage by accepting the consignment note. Having done so it is true that he isn’t formally obliged to take delivery of the goods. In those circumstances, however, he must then bear all the consequences which follow from his delaying or refusing to accept the goods, in particular if he postpones acceptance of dangerous goods without a compelling reason (see sub section 1.4.2.3.1 RID).
Henri. Trolliet(at)cit-rail.org Original: FR
