Partially Damaged Road Cargo from Turkey: CMR Article 25 Value Loss, 8.33 SDR Cap and Evidence

Short and direct answer: Article 25 of the CMR Convention requires a road carrier liable for damage to compensate the goods’ loss in value, using the valuation basis in Article 23(1), (2) and (4). Under Article 25(2), the maximum depends on whether the whole consignment was damaged or only a particular part. Where the 1978 Protocol applies, Article 23(3) limits ordinary compensation to 8.33 SDR per kilogram of the relevant gross weight. These rules are separate from proof of causation, condition on delivery, reservations and time limits.

Have a general question about this article? Ask anonymously

This guide is written for overseas buyers, insurers and international importers dealing with goods transported to or from Türkiye. It focuses on a partly damaged consignment rather than a completely missing shipment or a pure delay claim. Its method uses item-specific depreciation evidence and avoids treating a single damaged pallet as grounds to apply the weight of every unaffected pallet.

When Article 25 governs a damaged cargo claim

The Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) applies to the international road-carriage contracts described in Article 1. The places for taking over and designated delivery must be in different countries, at least one a Contracting State, and the carriage must be for reward in a relevant vehicle. The nationality or residence of the parties is not an independent exclusion. Before choosing any compensation formula, obtain the transport order and route records showing that these conditions are met.

Article 17(1) governs the carrier’s liability for total or partial loss and damage occurring between taking over the goods and delivery, subject to the Convention’s defences and proof rules. Article 25 then sets the measure of compensation for damage to goods, not the legal test for every possible cause of action. Its role is to quantify a proven reduction in value within the applicable cap. A party cannot jump directly to a claimed depreciation percentage before establishing that damage occurred within the relevant responsibility period.

Damage should be separated from shortage and delay. A missing pallet raises the loss measure in Article 23; a delivered but impaired product raises Article 25; a claim for economic loss caused by late arrival invokes the Convention’s different delay provisions. An incident may involve more than one category, but the accounts must identify which goods and loss belong to which branch. Describing every problem as damaged cargo obscures the correct value base, weight and notice requirements.

Article 25 uses the Article 23 value at taking over

The starting point is Article 25(1): the carrier is liable for the amount by which the goods diminished in value, using the valuation rule in Article 23(1), (2) and (4). Article 23(1) refers to the value of the goods at the place and time they were taken over for carriage. Paragraph 2 then directs the assessment to the commodity-exchange price, failing that current market price, and failing both the normal value of goods of the same kind and quality. The applicable base is therefore not automatically the resale invoice that the consignee issued several weeks after delivery.

The cargo file should identify the origin, loading date, quantity, quality and objectively supportable value at that time. A commercial invoice can help prove a price, but its relevance must be evaluated against the Convention’s hierarchy. Evidence might include supplier offers, exchange quotations, contemporaneous market transactions, invoices for comparable goods and a documented quality specification. If the cargo had special characteristics, the claimant should explain how those characteristics affect the normal value, not insert an unsupported premium into the calculation.

Where a claim is expressed in another currency, distinguish the historical goods value from the lawful currency conversion. Article 27(2) addresses conversion of amounts on which compensation is based at the exchange rate applicable on the day and place of payment. The 1978 Protocol also governs translation of SDR limits into national currency by its own rules. These are different steps. A calculation should identify its conversion date and source rather than combine historic invoice amounts, an arbitrary current exchange rate and an SDR limit in inconsistent currencies.

Measure diminution in value rather than inventing repair invoices as the legal formula

A damaged item may still be usable, saleable after reconditioning or worth only its residual material value. Article 25 directs the calculation to the amount by which the goods’ value has diminished, not to the amount of every cost later incurred by the consignee. The evidence must therefore compare the supported value of the goods under Article 23 with their impaired condition and resulting value. Repair estimates, independent surveys and actual salvage sales can be useful evidence, but they are not automatically the statutory measure.

For a production machine, distinguish a superficial defect from impairment of functional specifications and the cost of restoring them. For packaged foods, a temperature excursion may affect regulatory saleability, shelf life and the value of the affected lot. For a shipment of ceramics, crushed packaging may damage only part of the goods while leaving the remainder marketable. The examination should identify the exact items and effect rather than assume that contact with a damaged box has reduced every product to zero value.

If a claimant uses a percentage of depreciation, show how it was derived. Describe the pre-damage valuation, post-damage condition, comparable market evidence and the resulting percentage. Document whether insurance salvage, resale of damaged items or credited returns changed the residual value. Do not conflate the percentage used to demonstrate the loss with the percentage of the consignment’s weight damaged; those are different quantities used at different stages of the statutory calculation.

Whole-consignment damage and damage to only part have different ceilings

Article 25(2)(a) states that where the whole consignment has been damaged, compensation cannot exceed the amount that would be payable for total loss. Article 25(2)(b) applies a different rule when only part of the consignment has been damaged: the ceiling is the amount that would be payable if the part affected had been lost. Thus an invoice for one affected pallet does not automatically permit the gross weight of an entire unaffected truckload to be used to calculate the cap.

Identify the units physically affected and their gross weight. The file should include the packing list, consignment note, weight certificates, delivery count and survey identifying affected packages. If every unit has suffered a legally relevant diminution in value, the whole-consignment branch may be considered. If only selected cartons, machines or pallets are affected, the Article 25(2)(b) branch applies to that part. The answer follows the documented scope of damage, not the claimant’s preferred compensation ceiling.

Where an item is treated as economically worthless despite physical presence, explain the factual basis for that conclusion. Do not assume that every package from the same truck was wholly damaged merely because a refrigeration alarm occurred. Conversely, packaging that looks intact may contain concealed damage to many units. The assessment requires appropriate technical evidence and should distinguish the affected value from the affected gross weight, which drives the separate liability-cap calculation.

The 1978 Protocol sets a limit of 8.33 SDR per kilogram

The 1978 Protocol to the CMR amended Article 23(3) by replacing the original gold-franc limit with 8.33 units of account per kilogram of gross weight short. The unit of account is the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Right (SDR). In an applicable Turkish international road-carriage claim, the Article 25 compensation ceiling therefore needs to be read with the amended Article 23 and the gross weight of the relevant affected goods. The Protocol does not convert SDR into a fixed amount of euros or Turkish lira for all cases.

The basic arithmetic is straightforward but requires correct legal inputs. Suppose the affected part weighs 1,500 kilograms gross. The conventional cap at 8.33 SDR per kilogram gives 12,495 SDR for the affected part, subject to the precise applicable treaty and any legally justified departure from the limit. This example establishes the cap in units of account, not the claimant’s actual depreciation loss or an assured payment. The amount of proved diminution may be smaller than the cap.

Conversely, a 12,495 SDR cap does not establish that damage actually occurred or that the goods lost value by that amount. The claimant still must establish liability, identify the affected part and prove the depreciation. A carrier may have properly supported defences under Article 17 and Article 18, or the ordinary limitation may cease to be available under Article 29 if its demanding conditions are proved. Each issue has to be decided separately from the mathematical multiplication.

A clear worked example for a partially damaged shipment

Consider an illustrative shipment of ten industrial components transported on one international road consignment, with a supported origin value of EUR 100,000. On delivery, two components are shown by a competent inspection to have been damaged during carriage; their supported undamaged origin value is EUR 20,000, and the evidence supports a 40% diminution in value of those two items. The depreciation component attributed to them is EUR 8,000. The other eight components remain unaffected, so the analysis does not apply the same depreciation to their EUR 80,000 value.

Assume the affected components have a combined gross weight of 900 kilograms. The ordinary weight ceiling for loss of the affected part is 900 × 8.33 = 7,497 SDR under the amended Article 23(3), applied through Article 25(2)(b). The claim must compare the legally proved EUR 8,000 depreciation with the relevant cap after an appropriate conversion under the governing treaty provisions. It would be inaccurate to compare the numerical amounts 8,000 and 7,497 as if euros and SDR were identical units.

This is deliberately an illustration, not a representation of a real shipment or a current exchange-rate quotation. Different invoice values, gross weight, damaged quantity, residual value and SDR conversion date produce different outcomes. Proof of a declared higher value under Article 24, a special interest under Article 26 or disqualifying misconduct under Article 29 can alter the legal analysis. A professional claim should make every assumption explicit and keep supporting records next to the calculation.

Document the loss without destroying the original proof

A useful inspection begins at delivery. Record visible dents, moisture, broken seals, packaging condition, pallet counts and the type of damage. Preserve dated photographs from several angles, the original packages where reasonably possible and a count linked to product identifiers. Where internal or technical damage is suspected, arrange a competent survey or testing without unnecessarily altering the evidence before it is documented. The carrier should be given a fair opportunity for a joint inspection when relevant.

Article 30 includes an important evidentiary consequence when goods are taken over without checking their condition with the carrier or sending the required reservation. Taking delivery can be prima facie evidence that goods were received as described in the consignment note. That consequence is not necessarily a universal extinction of every damage claim, but it is a serious proof issue. A buyer should not rely on a casual telephone complaint as a substitute for contemporaneous written detail when the Convention requires it.

Market evidence also needs preservation. Keep the original supplier agreement, transport order, invoice, specifications, weight records, quality standards, pre-loading inspection, delivery report, survey, rejected-product log and resale or repair documentation. The loss calculation should allow the reader to reproduce the estimate of value before and after impairment. A large figure submitted with no itemized proof is not strengthened merely by calling the goods high value or mission critical.

CMR Article 30: apparent damage versus hidden damage

Article 30(1) treats visible and non-apparent loss or damage differently. Where the condition has not been duly checked with the carrier, reservations giving a general indication must be sent no later than delivery in the case of apparent loss or damage. For non-apparent loss or damage, they must be sent within seven days of delivery, Sundays and public holidays excluded, and the reservations must be written. The day of delivery is not counted in calculating the Convention’s period under Article 30(4).

Where a joint check was duly carried out, Article 30(2) restricts contradictory evidence, with an exception for damage that was not apparent and properly reserved in writing within seven days of the check, with the same exclusion for Sundays and public holidays. This is more precise than saying that any signature on a CMR consignment note is the final word on every internal defect. Examine what was actually inspected and what the signed document recorded.

Preserve proof of the written reservation’s content and transmission. A general indication of the damage is required; an entirely vague statement that there might be some problem is a poor substitute for identifying the affected pallets, condition and visible defect. In a case involving concealed temperature damage or internal machinery failure, record how and when the defect was discovered and why it was not apparent at delivery. Do not conflate these damage-reservation rules with the separate 21-day rule for delay under Article 30(3).

Liability and special-risk defences must be assessed separately

Article 17(1) starts with the carrier’s responsibility for damage within the custody period. Article 17(2) gives defined grounds of relief, including fault or neglect of the claimant, specified instructions, inherent vice of the goods or unavoidable circumstances whose consequences could not be prevented. Article 17(4) lists particular risks such as agreed open vehicles, lack of packaging, handling by the sender or consignee, the nature of certain goods, inadequate marks and carriage of live animals, subject to Article 18’s proof rules.

A carrier cannot simply point to a damaged carton and conclude that the sender’s packing caused every impairment. Equally, a claimant should not assume that all damage is irrebuttably the carrier’s fault. Determine the actual cause and examine the transport conditions. A broken temperature-controlled unit, unsuitable handling, a loading error or moisture exposure raises different factual questions. The Convention also expressly prevents reliance on a defective vehicle itself as a general ground of exoneration under Article 17(3).

For machinery, obtain the loading plan, securing records and vehicle condition where available. For chilled products, obtain calibrated temperature logs, agreed set points and records of doors opening or cargo inspections. For fragile goods, review the packaging design and evidence of normal or abnormal handling. Avoid asserting that a particular cause is established before the records support it. The statutory defence and burden of proof must be applied to the credible technical sequence.

Articles 24 and 26: higher declared value and special interest

Under Article 24, the sender may declare a value for the goods in the consignment note above the ordinary Article 23(3) limit against payment of an agreed surcharge. The declared value then substitutes for that limit. It is not enough that a high invoice accompanied the consignment or that the carrier could have guessed the goods were expensive. The legal analysis requires the actual declaration and surcharge conditions in the transport documentation.

Article 26 offers a different mechanism: the sender may state an amount representing special interest in delivery in the consignment note against an agreed surcharge, for loss, damage or exceeding the agreed time limit. Upon proof, additional damage may be claimed up to the specified declared interest independently of the amounts under Articles 23–25. A large claimed business loss cannot automatically be treated as such a declared special interest without the required record.

The two devices have distinct functions. A declared cargo value changes the ordinary liability limit; declared special interest can support an additional proved loss up to its stated amount. A lawyer should not claim both benefits without identifying each declaration, its wording and the surcharge arrangement. Conversely, a carrier should not quote only 8.33 SDR per kilogram if the consignment note and agreement validly establish one of the Convention’s higher-recovery routes.

Article 29: when limitation protections cease to be available

Article 29 is relevant where the claimant alleges wilful misconduct or a default considered equivalent under the law of the court or tribunal seized. In the specified circumstances, the carrier cannot rely on the Convention’s provisions excluding or limiting liability or shifting the burden of proof. Paragraph 2 applies the rule to qualifying acts of agents, servants and others used in the carriage while acting within their function.

This is an evidentiary and legal threshold, not an automatic result of damage that is severe, expensive or difficult to explain. A substantial loss does not by itself prove intentional misconduct or its legal equivalent. The claimant must identify the conduct, relevant participant and connection with the damage, then address the law of the forum concerning an equivalent default. Do not attach an invented decision or suggest that every temperature alarm legally removes the cap.

The practical lesson is to preserve the right evidence early. A reliable account of instructions, driver communications, security measures and conduct after the event can be material. The carrier should preserve its own operational records rather than make broad assertions of compliance. If Article 29 is invoked, the pleading should clearly separate the proof of the relevant conduct from the calculation of diminution under Article 25.

Article 32: the claim period and written suspension

Under Article 32(1), a CMR action is generally subject to a one-year limitation period. Where wilful misconduct or an equivalent default under the law of the court or tribunal is involved, the period is three years. For claims concerning partial loss, damage or delay, Article 32(1)(a) starts the clock from the date of delivery, with the first day excluded under the Convention. It is unsafe to substitute the date an insurer finished its internal investigation.

Article 32(2) provides that a written claim suspends the limitation period until the carrier rejects it by written notice and returns the documents attached to it. A partly admitted claim is treated as specified in that paragraph, and repeated claims with the same object do not suspend the period again. The party relying on receipt, rejection and return of documents must be prepared to prove those events. An ordinary telephone discussion should not be assumed to have the statutory effect of a written claim.

The Article 30 reservation and Article 32 limitation are different legal mechanisms. A timely reservation supports the evidentiary position, while limitation concerns the time for pursuing the action. Neither should be treated as an automatic substitute for the other. Maintain a chronology showing delivery, damage discovery, written reservations, written claim, rejection and judicial filing, with reliable service and transmission evidence.

Where to bring the claim under Article 31

Article 31(1) provides the Convention’s designated jurisdictional options: a court or tribunal of a Contracting State agreed by the parties, and certain courts connected with the defendant’s residence or principal business, the relevant contracting branch or agency, the place of taking over, or the designated place of delivery. A claimant should identify the forum by reference to the actual contract and parties rather than assuming every Turkish company must be sued in one particular city.

Article 33 permits an arbitration clause if it provides that the arbitral tribunal will apply the Convention. The clause and governing legal context require examination. The existence of an arbitration provision does not itself prove the claim or determine the valuation; jurisdiction and liability remain distinct questions. Where successive carriers were involved, additional rules in Articles 34–40 may affect the persons against whom proceedings may be brought.

For a foreign buyer, obtain the carrier’s full legal details, consignment note, signed booking conditions, route and communications. The choice between available Convention forums is a litigation decision based on enforceability, evidence and procedure. No article can guarantee that a court will award a particular amount merely because the consignment crossed a border. The claim needs a legally competent defendant and a properly supported damage calculation.

Practical claim file for a foreign business

An effective file begins with a one-page identification sheet: claimant, contractual carrier, any successive carriers, taking-over place and date, designated delivery, goods description and declared weight. Follow it with the factual timeline, the Article 30 reservations, technical inspection, origin-value evidence, supported diminution in value, and the Article 25 ceiling. Keep copies of the original electronic files with their metadata where legally appropriate.

Create a separate financial schedule with fields for each damaged line item: undamaged value, supported residual value, amount of diminution, gross weight of affected goods, the 8.33 SDR/kg cap, and any valid declared-value or special-interest entry. An unsupported additional business-loss figure should not be silently added to the ordinary Article 25 total. Record any insurer payment, salvage resale or other receipt and its legal treatment without presuming that it necessarily extinguishes every remaining right.

Bakırcı & Keskin Hukuk Bürosu handles Turkish legal matters for international clients from its physical office in Mersin and coordinates files throughout Türkiye using appropriate representation. Legal assessment requires the complete transport and evidentiary record. This article is general information, not a determination of a particular carrier’s liability or a guarantee of the eventual amount.

Related English articles

• CMR and road cargo damage: notice, evidence and limits
• Missing pallets in Turkey–Romania transport
• Cold-chain damage in Turkey–Italy transport
• CMR packaging and sender’s responsibility
• Cross-border transport involving pharmaceuticals
• Power of attorney for a Turkish lawyer from abroad

Author and representation

Author: Av. Halil Bakırcı, Bakırcı & Keskin Hukuk Bürosu. Physical offices in Istanbul and Mersin; cases and coordination may cover Türkiye for international clients through lawful representation. This is general information, not an assessment of a named shipment or a promise of recovery. The appropriate law and complete transport documents must be examined before action.