Concealed Cargo Damage After Clean CMR Delivery: Article 30, Seven-Day Written Reservations and Proof in Turkey

Scope: the clean delivery note problem

A consignee in Türkiye may sign a carrier’s proof of delivery because the number of cartons agrees with the shipping documents and no outside packaging looks torn. The receiving team later removes the protective material and discovers a cracked component, wet internal insulation or damaged electronics. The legal question is not simply whether somebody signed for the consignment. It is whether the damage was apparent when the goods were delivered, whether there was a joint check with the carrier, and whether a sufficiently specific written reservation reached the carrier within the CMR time window. A warehouse signature often establishes who received the packages; it does not necessarily certify the unseen condition of every component inside them.

This guide focuses on post-delivery evidence under Article 30 of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR). It is different from a broad guide to international cargo liability, from the carrier’s checks before taking over goods under Article 8, and from the calculation of compensation under Article 25. An effective response coordinates those topics without treating them as interchangeable. In particular, preserving the Article 30 evidential position does not itself establish the amount of the claim, that damage occurred during carriage, or that every carrier defence fails.

Check whether the carriage is governed by CMR

Article 1 concerns carriage of goods by road in vehicles for reward where the contract designates taking over and delivery in different countries, at least one of which is a contracting state. The nationality of the sender or consignee is not the criterion. Before starting a seven-day calculation, read the contract, consignment note, collection location, designated delivery address and route; identify whether the operation is genuine international road carriage rather than domestic transport, ocean carriage or a courier product governed by another mandatory scheme.

CMR can govern a movement involving Türkiye without making Turkish domestic law irrelevant to every collateral issue. However, the notice mechanism discussed here is the treaty’s Article 30 mechanism. A claim should identify the contractually designated carrier and the legal carrier, not merely the forwarding company’s marketing name. If a freight forwarder issued invoices but another company accepted the consignment as carrier, collect both sets of documents and seek advice on the contractual capacity in which each acted. Avoid sending the only notice to an unverified intermediary and then assuming treaty compliance.

Apparent loss versus concealed damage

CMR Article 30(1) separates loss or damage that is apparent at delivery from loss or damage that is not apparent. A missing pallet identified by comparing a clearly stated pallet count, a visibly broken crate, or liquid leaking from a package will normally call for a reservation at or before delivery. A hairline fracture under intact foam, water damage discovered only when internal layers are removed, or malfunction first evident from a necessary controlled test may raise the distinct question of non-apparent damage. The legal category depends on what an appropriate inspection could disclose at that time, not simply the consignee’s description of the defect.

Do not label obviously crushed packaging as concealed damage merely because the consignee forgot to write on the delivery note. Likewise, a carton being externally intact is not conclusive proof that its contents were sound. Capture photographs of the outer surfaces as received, seals and pallet wraps before altering them. The sequence from unopened packaging to reveal of damage should be traceable. A neutral description such as “external carton intact; internal motor bracket cracked on opening” is generally more useful than a conclusory allegation that the driver caused the loss.

The seven-day rule is a reservation rule, not a blanket claim period

For damage not apparent on receipt, Article 30(1) calls for a written reservation within seven days of delivery, with Sundays and public holidays excluded. Article 30(4) directs that the delivery date itself is not included when counting the treaty deadline. Article 30(2) creates a special rule where the carrier and consignee duly checked the condition together: evidence contrary to that joint check is admissible for non-apparent damage only if the consignee sends the prescribed written reservation within seven days of that check, subject to the same exclusions. These are different starting points and should not be merged without examining what actually happened.

The rule must not be presented as a universally safe “seven calendar days”, as a fixed number of business days identical across all jurisdictions, or as a promise that an email dispatched at the last possible minute will invariably satisfy every dispute. The date, the applicable public holidays and proof of dispatch or receipt require a specific timeline. Early action is simpler than arguing about the last day. Record the local date and time of delivery and of any joint examination; write to the carrier promptly, preferably on discovery, rather than taking advantage of the entire period.

What the written reservation should say

Article 30 requires a reservation giving a general indication of the loss or damage; it does not require a complete forensic report or a final valuation on the first day. An effective notice identifies the consignment, CMR number, sender and consignee, delivery date, packages affected, the observed defect, when it became observable and the fact that the carrier is being notified of concealed damage. Describe physical facts—two control boards fractured inside sealed crates—rather than making allegations that cannot yet be substantiated. If the full extent of the damage is unknown, state that inspection continues and that the notice is not a final quantification.

Address the writing to the carrier through verifiable channels named in the carriage documents or contract. Retain the original message, attachments, full email headers where available, receipt confirmations and the identity of the recipient. A messaging screenshot alone may leave sender identity and receipt contested. When practicable, use both the carrier’s stated claims channel and a traceable written channel, without assuming that a carrier’s automated support portal accepts formal treaty reservations. Asking for written acknowledgement and joint inspection also improves the record; lack of immediate acknowledgement is not a reason to abandon further steps.

The consignee signed “received in good order”: what follows?

Under Article 30(1), receipt without the prescribed joint check or reservation provides prima facie evidence that the goods were delivered in the condition described in the consignment note. Prima facie evidence means a starting evidential presumption, not an automatic substantive release of every latent-damage claim. The precise evidential burden depends on the route through Article 30, the condition of the goods, and the evidence available. Where a carrier and consignee have duly examined goods together, Article 30(2) imposes the specific limit on contradictory evidence already explained.

An electronic proof-of-delivery tick-box saying “no visible damage” and a document saying “all contents inspected and accepted” can have significantly different factual implications. Preserve the complete digital record, including the displayed wording, user name, timestamp, signature image, any photo or GPS association and audit trail. Do not alter it to add reservations after the event. Instead create a separate, accurately dated contemporaneous notice. The allegation that an employee lacked authority to waive a claim should be analysed against the actual document and employment arrangement; it is not a substitute for a timely reservation.

Build a defensible damage chronology

For a concealed-damage dispute, the clock and the physical chain of custody should be documented side by side. Establish the loading date, known condition before pickup, handover to the carrier, scheduled and actual delivery, unloading time, storage conditions, first opening of the packaging, first observation of each defect and notification to the carrier. Use time-stamped photographs that have not been stripped of their originals, warehouse intake logs, access records, unpacking videos, equipment diagnostic reports and the work order for inspection. Give each item a consistent file reference and keep an untouched original.

A chronology can also demonstrate events that favour the carrier. If a consignee moved a machine with a forklift, left wet cargo outdoors or carried out repairs before examination, those facts may matter to causation and loss mitigation. The purpose of legal proof is not to hide them; it is to distinguish damage during the road carriage from damage after delivery. A carefully prepared neutral record allows an expert, insurer or court to test plausible competing causes. That is stronger than a collection of selective photographs with no known capture date.

Offer the carrier a reasonable chance to inspect

Article 30(5) requires the carrier and consignee to give one another every reasonable facility for necessary investigations and checks. Once damage is identified, notify the carrier that packaging and goods are available for a coordinated survey, explain any immediate steps needed to avoid further loss and record invitations and responses. In dangerous or deteriorating situations, do not leave people or property exposed solely to preserve a perfect scene. Document necessary protective action before and after it is taken, and keep removed components and representative packaging when feasible.

Where a joint survey occurs, obtain a report that separates observations, measurements and photographs from any dispute about liability. Note who attended and whether the survey was undertaken with the carrier, an insurer, or only a warehouse surveyor; these are not automatically the same thing under Article 30(2). A report signed by several people should not be described as agreed proof of every legal conclusion unless it really records that agreement. If a carrier refuses access to a proposed survey, preserve evidence of that refusal and proceed with an appropriately independent assessment.

Packaging, handling and causes of damage

Carriers may invoke the particular responsibility and risk rules in Articles 17 and 18. Article 17(1) states the general liability for damage occurring between taking over and delivery, while Article 17(2) addresses causes that can relieve a carrier of liability. Article 17(4) includes specific risks such as inadequate packing, handling or unloading by the sender or consignee, and inherent characteristics of certain goods. Article 18 then addresses proof and presumptions associated with those defences. A signed clean delivery note neither establishes nor defeats all these questions.

Assess what the goods required: shock indicators, corrosion barriers, internal bracing, upright-only transport, temperature control or calibrated handling. Compare the seller’s packing specification with the actual photographs and the carrier’s statements on collection. Article 8 concerns the carrier’s initial check of the apparent condition of goods and packaging; Article 9 concerns evidential presumptions about that receipt. These documents can make a material difference when a carrier asserts that the defect pre-dated carriage. Keep the distinction clear between a reservation made by the carrier at collection and a consignee’s reservation after delivery.

Preserve digital evidence without changing it

Modern cargo files can contain electronic consignment notes, telematics logs, gate-system entries, delivery photographs, warehouse scanning records and machine controller data. Request preservation early, specifying the shipment number, time window, vehicle and relevant systems, while recognising that some information may be controlled by third parties rather than the carrier. Make read-only forensic copies where possible and document how exports were produced. For a malfunctioning machine, photograph displayed fault codes and keep a log of who powered the machine on, reset it or downloaded data.

The most persuasive record is ordinarily one another party can reproduce. If a video appears to show damage at unpacking but the original is missing and the file has been edited, its weight can be contested. Preserve full-resolution files, metadata, packaging serial numbers and photographs of adjacent undamaged goods from the same shipment. Keep correspondence together with the technical record so an examiner can see whether a particular crack was first observed before or after later handling. A legal reservation and evidence preservation are complementary tasks: neither replaces the other.

Calculation of the loss is a separate stage

A timely reservation protects the position under Article 30; it does not fix the amount payable. For damaged goods, Article 25 refers to the decrease in their value by reference to the valuation principles in Article 23, subject to treaty limits. Evidence may include purchase documents, market data, independent repair estimates, post-repair testing, salvage values and verified replacement cost. An invoice alone may overstate or understate a loss if repair is feasible or the damaged goods retain value. Keep a schedule linking each claimed item to its physical evidence.

The CMR contains additional mechanisms concerning declared value, special interest, interest and exceptional misconduct. Their application depends on the exact consignment note and facts; do not automatically copy the number used in an unrelated shipment’s compensation calculation. Losses connected with downtime, downstream production penalties or a customer’s lost profits should not be added indiscriminately to a cargo-damage claim without identifying a legally available route to recovery. Separate the inspection notice from the subsequent quantified demand and explain that their purposes and timing are different.

Do not confuse damage notice, delay notice and limitation

Article 30(3) concerns delay in delivery: a written reservation must be sent to the carrier within twenty-one days from the time goods are placed at the consignee’s disposal for compensation for delay to be payable. That is not the same as the seven-day written reservation for non-apparent damage, and it should not be used as a fallback extension to give notice of concealed physical damage. A shipment may involve both damaged goods and late delivery, requiring separate descriptions of what harm is alleged.

The lawsuit time limits are also separate. Article 32 sets a general one-year limitation period for a carriage claim and a three-year period in cases of wilful misconduct or default treated as equivalent under the law of the court hearing the case. Starting points differ with the type of claim; for damage the provision refers to delivery. Article 32(2) regulates the effect of a written claim on limitation and of a written rejection and return of documents. Therefore, a timely Article 30 reservation should not be treated as a complete litigation-calendar strategy. Keep both timelines in the file.

Who should communicate where there are several carriers?

A foreign seller, Turkish consignee, forwarding agent, road carrier and subcontracted driver may all appear on a single chain of emails. The legal carrier under the carriage contract and the roles of any successive carriers must be identified from the documents rather than assumed from logos. Article 34 establishes a particular regime for successive road carriers operating under one contract; Articles 35–39 address documentation and claims within that regime. A notice sent only to a driver or storage provider without proven authority is a preventable source of dispute.

Use the CMR note, booking confirmation, transport invoice, transport conditions and any carrier handover record to construct a responsibility chart. Send a sufficiently early, documented reservation to the identifiable legal carrier and consider copying other relevant contracting parties or insurers as appropriate. State that correspondence is for the shipment identified; avoid presenting a copied email to an insurer as proof that a reservation was served on the carrier. Where the identity of the legally responsible party is contested, preserve every version of the relevant contractual documents.

A controlled action plan for the first forty-eight hours

On discovery, isolate affected goods from further ordinary handling as safely as possible. Photograph packaging in place, the seal, the pallet configuration, the defect, part numbers and any labels. Copy the complete delivery record without altering its original. Identify whether damage was visible at the delivery moment or only on opening and record the reasons for that classification. Obtain statements from personnel while memories remain fresh, but avoid coaching witnesses into legal conclusions. Determine the carrier and the precise delivery and check dates.

Issue a concise written notice identifying the general damage and the shipment. Invite a joint inspection, keep proof that the message was sent through the intended channel and request preservation of transport records. Follow with a technical investigation and a provisional loss schedule when reliable figures become available. Set separate reminders for the Article 30 damage-notice window, any twenty-one-day delay reservation and the applicable Article 32 limitation analysis. Do not allow an insurance claim intake process to displace notice to the contractual carrier unless the applicable documents actually make that arrangement legally sufficient.

What a reservation should not say

The notice should not assert that the carrier “definitely caused” internal breakage where the only known fact is discovery after delivery. Nor should it claim that every carton was defective when the photos show one affected package. Avoid inserting false times, changing a delivery document after signature or presenting an ordinary customer-service complaint as a comprehensive treaty demand. Overly broad accusations can make a technical dispute harder to resolve and undermine the credibility of more modest, demonstrable facts.

By contrast, an appropriately limited reservation can state: “Shipment identified by the attached CMR note was delivered on [date]. On first unpacking on [date], internal brackets in packages [numbers] were found cracked although the outer packaging showed no obvious external damage. We give written notice of non-apparent damage under CMR Article 30. The affected items and packing are being preserved for a joint inspection; the extent and cause remain under investigation.” Replace each placeholder with verified information, not assumptions. Confirm the recipient and retain sending evidence.

Choosing a competent court and maintaining the file

If settlement fails, Article 31 sets specific international jurisdiction options for proceedings arising from CMR carriage. These include qualifying agreed courts and particular countries connected with the defendant, taking over of goods or designated delivery. A party should not assume that any Turkish court is automatically competent merely because the consignee has a Turkish office. The contract, the actual legal defendant and the correct court matter. Limitation under Article 32 should be assessed before prolonged correspondence consumes available time.

Organise the final file into contract and shipping documents, delivery and inspection chronology, original images and data, the Article 30 reservation, carrier response, expert material, valuation documents, and a limitation memorandum. For a cross-border proceeding, record which documents need translation, certification or confirmation from the foreign sender. A coherent file reduces avoidable disputes and helps an independent lawyer assess liability, quantum, jurisdiction and cost. The purpose is not to guarantee a recovery but to avoid losing evidence that a genuine claim will need.

How this guide differs from other CMR resources

The general road cargo damage guide explains broad liability, limits and procedure. The Article 8 carrier-checks guide concerns the carrier’s duties when taking over the goods, before the transport rather than the consignee’s post-delivery notice. The Article 25 valuation guide addresses how a proved physical loss may be measured. These questions overlap in the evidence but not in their statutory function.

Similarly, the delay-claim guide concerns a different reservation trigger, and the consignment-note guide concerns document errors and evidential presumptions. For written demands and interest after a claim is formulated, see the Article 27 interest guide. The distinctive subject of this article is the immediate evidential response to damage concealed at the moment of a seemingly clean delivery.

Frequently asked questions