CMR Cargo Declared Lost, Then Found: Article 20 Compensation, Thirty/Sixty-Day Rules and Recovery in Turkey

The overlooked problem after a freight-loss payout

A European supplier dispatches machinery to a Turkish buyer. Tracking stops, the receiving warehouse denies delivery, the carrier issues a loss report and compensation is eventually paid. Months later the original pallets appear at a separate depot. The parties now face a different question from the original claim: may the compensated party demand the freight, what must it repay, and what happens if nobody responds? CMR Article 20 provides a special legal sequence for this scenario. Treating the earlier loss settlement as the end of all rights can overlook the treaty’s written-notice and recovery provisions.

Begin with a chronology, not a conclusion that the carrier has become the owner of the recovered goods. Keep the carriage contract, consignment note, takeover date, agreed delivery term, claim papers, payment advice, recovered-goods identification and all subsequent notices. This guide is not another overview of damaged freight. It addresses the presumption of loss, the request for recovery notice, the following thirty-day decision, financial adjustments and the local-law consequences of non-response. Those stages remain distinct from carrier liability, insurance subrogation and customs release.

When the Convention governs a Turkey-bound shipment

Article 1 applies generally to remunerated carriage of goods by road in vehicles when the agreed places of taking over and delivery are in different countries, at least one of which is a contracting state. The sender’s nationality, the destination country’s customs broker and the language of the consignment note do not determine the rule. Verify the two contractual locations and the actual carrier relationship. An international movement into Türkiye may qualify, but a domestic journey or a genuinely distinct sea-freight contract requires its own legal analysis.

Do not presume that every document headed CMR conclusively establishes the Convention’s scope. Obtain the entire booking, the carrier’s acceptance, route documents, goods description, and any agreement governing a multimodal movement. Article 20 is directed to the international carriage obligation, not a supplier’s independent contractual promise to replace faulty goods. Distinguish the carrier from a forwarder who may have acted only as agent. Identifying the correct legal carrier is critical both for the compensation claim and for the subsequent written demand that recovered goods be reported.

Article 20(1): the thirty-day route

If a time-limit for delivery was agreed, Article 20(1) treats non-delivery within thirty days after expiry of that time-limit as conclusive evidence of loss. The period is not thirty days after loading by default and is not necessarily thirty days after a tracking system’s approximate arrival estimate. The first task is to prove the actual agreed delivery limit through the carriage contract, booking correspondence, consignment note or another reliable written record. Then determine whether delivery occurred and calculate the relevant elapsed period.

Where parties later disagree about an alleged extension, record who proposed it, whether it became binding and what practical conduct followed. A warehouse’s message that goods might arrive next week need not be treated as a contractual amendment without examination. The presumption is valuable because the claimant need not prove physical destruction. Nevertheless, it does not establish the value of the cargo, the responsible defendant or the availability of every claimed consequential loss. Keep the proof of the agreed date separate from the proof of quantum.

Article 20(1): the sixty-day route

Where there is no agreed delivery time-limit, Article 20(1) uses sixty days after the carrier took over the goods. The takeover date must therefore be documented independently. It may appear on the consignment note and collection scans, but an incomplete system record may not prove that the carrier took physical possession. Compare the driver’s signed receipt, collection gate log, loading reports and communications between the sender and carrier. Do not count from the invoice date merely because it is the easiest date to locate.

The sixty-day alternative does not make lateness irrelevant before that point. Article 19 separately addresses delay by reference to the reasonable duration expected of a diligent carrier when no delivery limit is agreed. A claimant can investigate and protect its position before the conclusive loss presumption arises. However, the threshold for treating goods as lost under Article 20 remains a different legal test. A properly drafted advice should show both the operational delay chronology and the distinct date on which the presumption becomes available.

A conclusive presumption does not mean the goods ceased to exist

The Convention deliberately permits goods to be treated as lost even though they might later be located. This is not an inconsistency. The law provides a workable route to a claim without making the shipper prove an unknown physical event inside a transport network. Article 20(2)–(4) then addresses the possibility of later recovery. Therefore, finding pallets after payment does not, standing alone, establish that the prior loss claim was false. Whether the claimant had a justified Article 20(1) position must be judged against the relevant dates and facts.

Conversely, an administrative tracking error should not be confused with genuine non-delivery. If the consignee accepted the identified goods and the carrier can prove that delivery, the premise for a loss claim must be reconsidered. Obtain identification data such as serial numbers, labels, pallet counts and signature records. Preserve the condition of each item as found. A location scan by itself is not a substitute for physical identification, and neither the claimant nor the carrier should rewrite earlier events to fit a convenient settlement narrative.

Who is entitled to make the claim?

Article 20 refers to the person entitled to make a claim, not merely the person who has the loudest demand or whose name appears on a commercial invoice. The contractual sender and consignee rights, any Article 12 disposition instruction, and applicable assignment or subrogation documents may affect entitlement. Where a supplier, buyer and cargo insurer all participate, one must distinguish the property interest in the goods from the legal right to pursue the carrier. A settlement should not leave that question unanswered.

Ask for the carriage documents, insurance policy, compensation receipt and any transfer of rights. If an insurer has paid under a Turkish insurance contract, insurance subrogation may be relevant under its own legal rules, but Article 20’s later-recovery option must still be evaluated. Avoid directing a warehouse to release goods to a person who only claims ownership in an email. A written entitlement memorandum is especially important where the buyer replaced the goods and the seller was compensated, because their commercial preferences can diverge.

The written request provided by Article 20(2)

After receiving compensation for missing goods, the entitled person may request in writing that it be notified immediately if those goods are recovered during the year following the compensation payment. Article 20(2) requires the carrier to acknowledge that request in writing. The wording matters: the trigger is the receipt of compensation and the subsequent year is measured from payment, not automatically from the date of collection or a claim administrator’s first letter. A request made through a provable channel should identify the precise consignment.

Include the CMR number, description and serial numbers where known, claimant contact information, compensation payment details and a clear request for notice on recovery. Retain the sent copy and acknowledgment rather than relying on an undocumented telephone discussion. Do not describe the mechanism as a promise to track goods indefinitely or suggest that a generic insurance claim form necessarily satisfies the separate treaty requirement. The responsible carrier should understand what request was made, by whom, for which goods and on what payment record.

Why the year after compensation matters

The one-year window in Article 20(2) and the more-than-one-year event in Article 20(4) should be placed on a dedicated timeline. If compensation was paid later than the initial carrier investigation, do not use the earlier date merely because it seems familiar. If the settlement involved stages or more than one party, identify the relevant payment relating to the missing freight and obtain documentation before calculating the legal consequences. The one-year wording cannot responsibly be replaced with a generic calendar-year deadline.

The carrier should continue to preserve evidence when cargo is recovered and determine whether a valid written request is on file. Where the goods are discovered late, avoid acting as though an internal stock count automatically resolves ownership or the power to sell. Paragraph 4 refers to dealing with goods in accordance with the law where they are situated. That is a local-law qualification, not an automatic transfer of title to the carrier on the anniversary of settlement.

The thirty-day recovery option after notification

Under Article 20(3), the entitled person can require delivery within thirty days after receipt of notice that the missing goods have been recovered. The right is not a free second recovery in addition to previously paid compensation. The paragraph requires the specified charges due under the consignment note and refund of compensation received, adjusted for charges included in that compensation. It also preserves certain claims connected with delay under Articles 23 and 26 where applicable. Keep separate records for the carrier’s notice and the claimant’s response.

A useful recovery notice should state the identity, condition and location of the goods and include proof they belong to the relevant shipment. The recipient should document the date it actually received the notice, inspect the goods promptly and request an itemised statement of the sums demanded. Asking for clarification may be commercially sensible, but it should not be assumed to suspend the thirty-day option. A responsible adviser calculates the decision window while investigating whether taking the goods back is lawful and economically worthwhile.

Refunding compensation and reconciling charges

The financial condition under Article 20(3) needs a transparent reconciliation. Create a schedule showing the original goods-value payment, any freight-related components included in compensation, consignment-note charges actually due, and the balance to be returned or paid. Do not simply demand both the entire prior settlement and every freight expense if the statute calls for a deduction of charges included in the compensation. Equally, a claimant should not keep a full loss payment and take possession of recovered goods without examining the repayment obligation.

Original settlement documents, bank confirmations, invoices and carrier statements are essential. Where an insurer made the original payment, determine which legal person must receive the refund and who may instruct the carrier to deliver the goods. If the stock is damaged, document its present condition rather than unilaterally subtracting an unsupported repair amount. Separate any damage or delay claim from the Article 20 accounting. The objective is to prevent double recovery while preserving rights that the Convention does not extinguish.

No request, no instructions or recovery after one year

Article 20(4) specifies circumstances in which the carrier may deal with the goods under the law of their location: no request under paragraph 2; no instructions within the thirty-day period under paragraph 3; or recovery more than a year after compensation. These conditions do not mean the carrier can ignore customs restrictions, transfer requirements, safety rules or competing claims. The Convention itself refers to the local law as the rule governing how goods may be dealt with. An informal auction may not be sufficient.

Before disposal, prepare proof of payment, notification requests, acknowledgments, recovery dates, claimant communications, goods identity and current storage location. Where goods are in Türkiye, consider the property’s legal status and any customs or regulatory restrictions before sale or movement. The carrier’s action should be supported by a documented legal basis. For the claimant, a deliberate choice not to recover goods should also be recorded, rather than allowing silence to create avoidable disputes about notice and entitlement.

Difference from loss, damage and delay claims

CMR Article 20’s presumption of loss is distinct from the carrier’s underlying liability under Article 17 and the calculation of compensation under Article 23. Damage discovered after delivery raises different evidential questions addressed in Article 30. A delayed shipment that is later delivered may engage Article 19 and the specific written delay reservation in Article 30(3). Do not use the seven-day concealed-damage notice or twenty-one-day delay-reservation mechanisms as a substitute for the post-compensation recovery notice in Article 20(2).

Create separate entries for the contractual delivery term, the deemed-loss threshold, carrier liability evidence, compensation calculation, payment, recovery request and subsequent goods-found notice. If more than one theory is present, explain the facts supporting each rather than treating them as mutually interchangeable. A shipment can be late, physically damaged and temporarily unlocated, but the treaty assigns different consequences to those circumstances. The precise characterisation matters for both legal entitlement and the accuracy of public legal advice.

Litigation limitation is a separate clock

Article 32 provides the CMR limitation framework, including a general one-year period and a defined longer period for certain serious misconduct. Its starting points depend on the category of claim. The thirty/sixty-day presumption in Article 20 does not by itself replace the limitation rules. Nor should the written recovery-notification request after compensation be treated as a universal suspension of the period for court proceedings. Article 32(2) has its own conditions concerning written claims, rejection and return of documents.

A case manager should record takeover, contractual deadline, first and last carrier correspondence, deemed-loss date, claim notice, payment, recovery request, goods-found notification and any proposed court action. Review whether correspondence actually reached the correct carrier and what documents were exchanged. That chronology is particularly important for foreign companies with different commercial and legal teams. The independent Article 30 guide addresses damage reservations, not Article 20 recovery rights.

Proof that goods recovered are the same shipment

A recovered pallet may be stored in a terminal without reliable records. Before a claimant chooses between money and physical freight, match product numbers, seal details, packaging photographs, serial numbers, warehouse location and quantity. Where a machine was allegedly lost but an item with the same model appears, confirm serial identification rather than assuming that similarity equals identity. Establish how the carrier or warehouse obtained possession, when the goods were found, and whether they were altered, repaired or moved since the original journey.

Take clear condition photographs and retain the original files. If customs transit is unfinished, determine whether release from the warehouse is legally permitted. For regulated equipment or perishable goods, document technical fitness, safety and storage conditions before collection. A recovery notice may be validly issued even when further inspection is needed, so postpone neither the claimant’s decision nor the preservation of evidence. Professional advice may be needed to coordinate the carrier, customs broker, insurer and contractual parties without forfeiting the statutory choice.

Commercial consequences when replacement goods were bought

The buyer may have procured replacement freight, paid emergency storage, or lost the original sales opportunity by the time the shipment is found. Those facts influence the commercial decision to reclaim but they do not change Article 20’s stated conditions automatically. A claim for downstream financial harm must have its own legal basis, proof and treaty analysis. Do not present a replacement purchase invoice as conclusively establishing unlimited carrier liability. Likewise, compensation already paid should be reconciled to prevent one party retaining the full economic value twice.

The sender and buyer may disagree over who should take the original goods. Review the sale contract, any title reservation, delivery term and rights under the carriage documents separately. An insurer that financed the claim may have a distinct interest. A short written agreement among the relevant parties can set out who communicates with the carrier, who pays the consignment-note charges, who receives freight, and how the earlier payment is accounted for. The agreement should not purport to change CMR obligations binding on a nonconsenting party.

Comparison with related English material

The general cargo guide examines liability and ordinary loss or damage claims. The Article 25 valuation guide concerns deterioration in the value of goods that arrived. The delay claims guide addresses a different legal and documentary problem. This article is deliberately narrower: it asks what the parties must do after the legal loss presumption was invoked, compensation was paid and the physical goods later reappeared.

The insurance subrogation guide may help where a Turkish insurer paid a policyholder, while the Article 12 guide concerns disposal instructions during carriage. They should not be collapsed into a duplicate treatment of Article 20. For an actual claim, begin with the written documents showing who is entitled to reclaim and whether the required post-payment notice was requested and acknowledged.

Frequently asked questions