CMR Consignment Note Mandatory Fields: Article 6 for Turkey Freight

1. Article 6 defines the data architecture of the CMR note

CMR Article 4 provides that the contract of carriage is confirmed by the making out of a consignment note, while absence, irregularity or loss of that note does not affect the existence or validity of the contract. Article 6 therefore does not make the document constitutive of the contract. It defines what the CMR consignment note must contain so the document can perform its evidentiary, operational and cross-border functions.

The distinction matters in disputes. A missing field can create an evidential or responsibility issue without automatically making the carriage contract void. The legal consequences are traced through Articles 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 rather than reduced to a statement that an incomplete CMR is invalid.

For transport managers, the safest compliance method is a field-by-field Article 6 review before dispatch. For claim handlers, the same review should be repeated against the commercial order, loading records, packing list and delivery evidence. Inconsistency between those records often identifies the factual issue that must be resolved before liability or quantum is calculated.

2. Article 6(1)(a): date and place where the note is made out

The consignment note must state the date and place at which it is made out. This is distinct from the date and place at which the goods are taken over, which Article 6(1)(d) separately requires. Treating those entries as interchangeable can obscure the chronology.

The making-out data identifies the documentary event. The taking-over data identifies the start of the carrier’s custody for purposes including Article 17 liability and several time calculations. Where the form was generated at a dispatch office before a truck reached the warehouse, both events should be recorded correctly rather than forcing one date into two legally different fields.

For e-CMR, timestamps and record-generation logs should preserve the same distinction. Digital creation does not eliminate Article 6(1)(a); Article 4(1) of the e-CMR Additional Protocol requires the electronic note to contain the same particulars as the paper CMR note.

3. Article 6(1)(b), (c) and (e): identify the sender, carrier and consignee correctly

The note must contain the sender’s name and address, the carrier’s name and address, and the consignee’s name and address. These entries should identify legal entities, not merely trading labels or warehouse contacts. A freight forwarder, contractual carrier, performing road haulier, seller and consignee can be different persons.

The carrier field has particular importance because Article 3 makes the carrier responsible for acts and omissions of agents, servants and other persons whose services are used for performance when they act within the scope of their functions. Later subcontracting does not justify rewriting the historical note so that the contractual structure becomes unclear.

Where multiple carriers participate, determine whether the arrangement meets the successive-carrier rules in Articles 34–36. Do not use a generic “carrier” label to avoid identifying which entity accepted the goods and the consignment note. Entity names, registered addresses, company numbers where available and contractual roles should be preserved in the claim file.

4. Article 6(1)(d): place and date of taking over and place designated for delivery

Article 6 requires both the place and date of taking over of the goods and the place designated for delivery. These are not ordinary logistics details. Article 1 uses the contractual taking-over and designated delivery places to determine CMR scope. Article 31 uses those places as independent jurisdictional connecting factors. Article 17 links carrier liability to the period between taking over and delivery.

The designated delivery place should reflect the carriage contract, not a later assumption based on where an invoice was issued. If instructions validly change the destination under Article 12, preserve the original note and the later instruction. The original Article 6 entry remains relevant to the contract as made, while the instruction evidence explains the subsequent route.

In a cross-border Turkey file, record the complete locality and country. A warehouse code that only the transport platform understands is weak evidence outside that system. Where the site has several gates or logistics compounds, the supporting booking and geolocation records should identify the actual place without altering the treaty document retrospectively.

5. Article 6(1)(f) and (g): description, packing, packages, marks and numbers

The note must state the description in common use of the nature of the goods and the method of packing. For dangerous goods, the generally recognised description must be used. It must also state the number of packages and their special marks and numbers.

These particulars are directly relevant when a claim concerns shortage, substitution, packaging or dangerous-goods disclosure. A generic entry such as “parts” can be commercially familiar but evidentially weak if hundreds of distinct components are loaded. The packing list should be tied to the CMR by shipment reference, package identifiers and consistent quantities.

Article 8 requires the carrier, on taking over, to check the accuracy of statements concerning the number of packages and their marks and numbers, so far as reasonably possible, and to check the apparent condition of the goods and packing. Where reasonable means of checking are unavailable, Article 8 provides a reservation mechanism. Accurate Article 6 package data therefore supports the Article 8 process rather than operating in isolation.

6. Article 6(1)(h): gross weight or quantity otherwise expressed

The note must state the gross weight of the goods or their quantity otherwise expressed. Weight is operationally important and can become decisive in compensation. Under the 1978 CMR Protocol, Article 23(3) uses a limit of 8.33 Special Drawing Rights per kilogram of gross weight short where that Protocol applies.

The Article 6 weight entry should be supported by loading documents, scale tickets or other reliable records when the amount is material. A customs declaration, commercial invoice and CMR note can use different measurement concepts. Net product weight, gross package weight, pallet weight and vehicle gross weight must not be substituted for one another without identifying what each figure represents.

Where the dispute concerns only part of a consignment, package-level weight evidence is valuable. It enables the claimant and carrier to identify the affected gross weight without using the gross weight of unaffected goods as a shortcut.

7. Article 6(1)(i) and (j): carriage charges and customs instructions

Article 6 requires the charges relating to carriage, including carriage charges, supplementary charges, customs duties and other charges incurred from making the contract to delivery. It also requires the requisite instructions for customs and other formalities.

These entries serve different functions from the commercial sale price. The freight invoice should reconcile with the charge allocation recorded in the transport documents. For claims, Article 23(4) separately governs recovery of carriage charges, customs duties and other charges incurred in respect of carriage in cases of total or partial loss.

Customs instructions should be precise enough to identify the required procedure and attached documentation. Article 11 governs the sender’s duty to attach or place at the carrier’s disposal documents needed for customs or other formalities and gives specific consequences for absence, inadequacy or irregularity. The CMR note should therefore identify the customs-document flow rather than silently relying on a separate email chain.

8. Article 6(1)(k): the note must state that carriage is subject to CMR

The consignment note must state that the carriage is subject, notwithstanding any clause to the contrary, to the provisions of the CMR Convention. This statement reflects CMR’s mandatory nature. Article 41 declares stipulations that directly or indirectly derogate from the Convention null and void, subject to the specific Article 40 freedom concerning recourse arrangements among carriers.

The statement should not be replaced by a vague reference to “international transport terms.” CMR is a specific uniform treaty regime. The form should identify it expressly. That improves legal clarity for the parties, claim handlers, insurers and courts reviewing the document after the transport.

Including the statement does not itself create CMR scope where Article 1 is not satisfied. Conversely, omitting the statement does not automatically remove a carriage that objectively falls within the Convention. Scope and documentary compliance remain separate legal questions.

9. Article 6(2): additional particulars when the carriage arrangement requires them

Article 6(2) lists further particulars that must appear where applicable. They include a statement that trans-shipment is not allowed; charges the sender undertakes to pay; the cash-on-delivery charge; a declaration of value under Article 24; a declaration of special interest in delivery under Article 26; the sender’s instructions concerning insurance; the agreed time limit for performance; and a list of documents handed to the carrier.

These are not decorative fields. A declared value can substitute for the ordinary Article 23(3) limit when the Article 24 conditions are satisfied, including the agreed surcharge. A special interest in delivery can support additional proven loss within Article 26. A cash-on-delivery amount activates the specific Article 21 rule if the carrier delivers without collecting it.

For that reason, do not add declarations after loss to improve a claim. The legal effect depends on the carriage agreement and consignment note made for the shipment. Preserve the original signed or authenticated record.

10. Article 7 allocates responsibility for inaccurate or inadequate particulars

Article 7 makes the sender responsible for expenses, loss and damage sustained by the carrier by reason of inaccuracy or inadequacy of specified particulars. The provision covers the sender and consignee details, taking-over and delivery places, goods description, packages and marks, weight or quantity, customs instructions and the applicable additional particulars supplied by the sender.

If the carrier enters those particulars at the sender’s request, Article 7 provides that the carrier is deemed, unless the contrary is proved, to have acted on behalf of the sender. This rule prevents a data-entry act from automatically shifting legal responsibility for source information.

A claim file should therefore identify who supplied the disputed data. Preserve transport orders, EDI messages, booking forms and amendment logs. Correcting an operational error after discovery is important, but the historical record must remain available so responsibility can be determined under Article 7.

11. Article 8 requires carrier checks at taking over

On taking over the goods, Article 8 requires the carrier to check the accuracy of statements in the consignment note concerning the number of packages and their marks and numbers, and the apparent condition of the goods and packaging. If the carrier has no reasonable means of checking the accuracy of the package information, the carrier must enter reservations in the consignment note together with the grounds.

Reservations concerning apparent condition should likewise be specific. A generic “unchecked” notation is weaker than a statement identifying sealed loading, inaccessible pallet counts or visible torn packaging. Article 8 also allows the sender to require the carrier to check gross weight or quantity otherwise expressed and package contents, subject to the carrier’s right to claim the cost of checking, with the result entered in the note.

The Article 6 fields therefore establish what is to be checked; Article 8 governs the check and any reservation.

12. Article 9 gives the completed note prima facie evidentiary force

Article 9 provides that the consignment note is prima facie evidence of the making and conditions of the contract and of receipt of the goods by the carrier. If the note contains no specific reservations by the carrier, there is a presumption, unless the contrary is proved, that the goods and packing appeared to be in good condition when the carrier took them over and that the number of packages, marks and numbers corresponded with the statements in the note.

This evidentiary rule explains why accurate Article 6 data matters. A field is not merely an administrative box. It can become the reference point for a presumption that shapes the evidence required in later proceedings.

The presumption remains rebuttable. Loading photographs, warehouse records, scale tickets, seal evidence and technical documents can still matter. The correct approach is to read the CMR note together with the supporting evidence rather than treating either as automatically conclusive.

13. e-CMR must reproduce Article 6 particulars and preserve their integrity

Article 4(1) of the 2008 e-CMR Additional Protocol requires an electronic consignment note to contain the same particulars as the CMR consignment note. Article 4(2) requires integrity from the time the electronic record is first generated in final form, and Article 4(3) requires supplements and amendments to be detectable while preserving the original particulars.

For Turkey-related digital carriage, validate the electronic form against Article 6 exactly as you would a paper note. Preserve the audit trail and authentication data. The separate e-CMR Turkey guide explains the Protocol’s electronic-signature and procedure requirements.

Related English CMR guides

Road cargo damage in Turkey under CMR · Law governing international carriage connected with Turkey · English legal services in Turkey

Frequently asked questions

Official legal sources

UNIDROIT — CMR Convention · UNECE — e-CMR Additional Protocol