CMR Successive Carriers: Recovery of Paid Cargo Compensation Under Articles 37–40 in Turkey

Prove successive carriage before applying the recourse allocation

Articles 34–40 of the CMR Convention concern carriage performed by successive road carriers under the treaty’s stated structure. Establish Article 1 scope and a single carriage contract. The UN depositary record confirms Türkiye’s participation, but a Turkish carrier’s involvement alone does not prove that every subcontract belongs to this particular successive-carrier regime.

Article 34 makes each qualifying successive carrier responsible for the whole operation. The second and subsequent carriers become parties to the contract, on the note’s terms, by accepting the goods and consignment note. Obtain the single-contract documents and actual acceptance records. A chain of invoices naming several hauliers is relevant evidence but does not by itself establish every condition of Article 34.

The Article 3 guide explains attribution of conduct by persons used to perform carriage. That is distinct from successive-carrier status and its recourse provisions. Identify the correct relationship first. An ordinary subcontract claim can require a different analysis even though it arises from the same cargo incident.

Use the records that connect each carrier with the goods

Article 35 requires a carrier accepting goods from a previous carrier to provide a dated, signed receipt and enter its name and address on the second consignment-note copy. It also addresses appropriate reservations on the note and receipt. Preserve those handover documents with the carriage contract. They establish more than the identity of the truck that appeared at one point on the route.

Paragraph (2) applies Article 9’s evidential rules between successive carriers. Compare the description, quantity, apparent condition and reservations at each handover. The note’s evidential effect is not a reason to discard contrary evidence. Photographs, inspection records and custody logs can help identify whether the goods’ condition changed before or after a particular carrier accepted them.

A clear custody chronology identifies each carrier’s period, relevant warehouse or transshipment event, and information received about the goods. Distinguish events established by contemporaneous records from later recollection. This provides the factual basis for deciding which carrier caused the loss and whether a proportional allocation is required, instead of assigning responsibility by route length alone.

Article 37 requires a payment made in accordance with CMR

The opening words of Article 37 concern a carrier that paid compensation in compliance with the Convention. Obtain the underlying demand, liability assessment, judgment or settlement and actual payment evidence. Identify why the amount was payable under CMR. A commercial payment described as goodwill should not automatically be presented as satisfying every requirement for treaty recourse.

The provision covers recovery of that compensation together with interest and costs and expenses incurred because of the claim, subject to its allocation rules. Prepare a schedule distinguishing the compensation principal, interest, procedural costs and other claimed expense. Each amount needs supporting evidence and a connection to the claim. An undivided internal debit note makes the legal basis difficult to assess.

Record the payer, recipient, payment date, currency and allocation. A judgment fixing a sum is not the same document as a bank receipt showing it was paid. Both can matter, but for different questions. The amount actually paid also needs to be reconciled with refunds, recoveries and any sum already contributed by another carrier.

Article 37(a) places the loss on the responsible carrier

Where one carrier is responsible for the loss or damage, Article 37(a) makes it solely responsible for the compensation, whether it paid the claimant directly or another carrier paid. The fact that a different carrier was selected as defendant in the cargo claim does not itself decide the final allocation between carriers. Establish the causative event and the responsible carrier’s role.

Article 36’s rules identifying carriers against whom a cargo claimant can proceed serve a different function from Article 37’s internal allocation. A carrier can therefore need to examine recourse after satisfying a claim without assuming that the claimant’s choice of defendant established every other carrier’s contribution. Keep the external compensation file and the internal responsibility evidence linked but distinguish their legal questions.

Preserve the records relevant to the alleged event, including handover condition, instructions, vehicle records and technical findings. A survey should identify what it can establish about cause and timing and what remains unresolved. Article 37(a)’s sole-responsibility route requires evidence supporting that attribution, not simply the paying carrier’s commercial preference for shifting the entire sum.

Article 37 distinguishes shared responsibility from unknown attribution

Under Article 37(b), where two or more carriers caused the loss or damage, each pays in proportion to its responsibility. Where that apportionment cannot be determined, the provision uses the share of payment for the carriage due to each carrier. The relevant measure is therefore not automatically distance travelled, company size or the number of vehicles supplied.

Article 37(c) deals with inability to identify the carriers to whom responsibility is attributable. It allocates compensation among all the carriers using the payment-share approach referred to in paragraph (b). Distinguish uncertainty about the proportion between known responsible carriers from uncertainty about which carriers were responsible. The evidence and allocation explanation should state which route is relied upon.

Obtain the relevant freight agreements and allocation records, including amounts due to each participant. A consolidated customer invoice may not reveal the internal payment shares. Reconcile currencies and any later adjustment before calculating a proportional demand. The schedule should show the figures used and why they correspond to the Convention’s allocation measure.

Article 38 redistributes an insolvent carrier’s unpaid share

Article 38 addresses a carrier that is insolvent and has not paid its compensation share. That unpaid share is divided among the other carriers in proportion to the carriage payment due to them. Establish the insolvency, allocated share and amount unpaid. A late invoice response or refusal to admit liability should not be silently treated as proof of insolvency.

Keep the insolvency evidence separate from the causation analysis. Article 38 concerns redistribution of an unpaid share, not a declaration that every remaining carrier caused the original damage. Identify any partial contribution and subsequent recovery from the insolvent carrier’s estate. Those receipts must remain visible so the account does not demand the same unpaid amount after it has been recovered.

The Convention’s allocation does not itself provide the complete procedure for lodging a claim in an insolvency estate. Identify the actual proceeding, governing process and relevant deadlines. Pursuing contribution from other carriers should not cause a necessary insolvency step to be overlooked. The two routes require coordinated accounting and a clear record of payments.

Carriers can agree a different allocation within Article 40

Article 40 permits carriers to agree among themselves on provisions different from Articles 37 and 38. Obtain the actual allocation agreement, incorporated conditions and evidence of acceptance. Do not assume that a general subcontract label proves a valid variation of every recourse rule. Identify the clause, parties and loss category to which the proposed variation applies.

The permission is specific to Articles 37 and 38. It should not be described as a general licence to displace every CMR procedural or cargo-claim protection. Article 41 expressly retains Article 40’s exception while otherwise regulating contractual derogation. Read the proposed agreement against that structure, keeping the cargo claimant’s external rights separate from internal carrier allocation.

Check that the agreement covers the carriers against whom it is invoked. A term accepted by two companies does not automatically bind every other participant merely because the same truck or goods passed through their hands. Preserve the contractual chain and any later amendment, then explain whether the claim follows the default treaty allocation or the identified contractual variation.

Prior-proceeding notice can affect a later challenge to payment

Article 39(1) prevents a carrier facing recourse under Articles 37–38 from disputing the validity of the paying carrier’s payment where the compensation amount was judicially determined after that other carrier received due notice and an opportunity to appear. The conditions are cumulative. Preserve the original proceeding, notice, service evidence and opportunity provided to participate.

A general warning that a cargo claim exists is not necessarily the same as due notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to appear. Identify the court, claim and procedural documents supplied. The appropriate method depends on the actual proceedings and applicable procedure; CMR does not replace every domestic service requirement with an informal email.

This rule concerns the validity of the relevant payment. It does not eliminate the need to establish successive-carrier status, the applicable allocation and the amount sought from the particular defendant. Keep those questions explicit in the recourse demand. A judicially fixed cargo award should not be presented as automatically deciding every unaddressed issue between all carriers.

A private settlement has a different evidential position

A settlement without the specified judicial determination does not satisfy Article 39(1)’s stated combination merely because the paying carrier considers it reasonable. Preserve the settlement negotiations, liability evidence, calculation and receipt so the payment’s treaty basis can be assessed. The absence of the paragraph’s binding-payment protection does not itself prove that the recourse claim has no merit.

Explain any difference between the original demand and amount paid. Record the claims released and any rights reserved against other carriers. A settlement should not be described as a court judgment, and an insurer’s assessment should not be described as a judicial determination. Accurate classification permits the later court to address the evidence actually available.

Article 39(2) supplies a specific recourse-jurisdiction rule

A carrier seeking recovery can invoke Article 39(2)’s court connection with a country where one carrier concerned is ordinarily resident or has its principal business, or the branch or agency through which the carriage contract was made. The paragraph also permits all the carriers concerned to be defendants in the same action. Establish the relevant business connection from reliable records.

Do not select a recourse forum solely by copying the location used in the cargo claimant’s original action. The CMR jurisdiction guide addresses the broader treaty framework. The recourse provision, the actual defendants and any jurisdiction agreement need their own assessment, followed by the domestic rules identifying the competent court and required procedure.

The Convention addresses enforcement of recourse judgments abroad

Article 39(3) applies Article 31(3)–(4) to judgments in the recourse proceedings. The framework concerns a judgment enforceable in its originating Contracting State and compliance with the destination state’s required formalities, without reopening the merits through those formalities. Obtain the complete judgment and evidence of its enforceability, rather than relying on a summary of the result.

Article 31(4) identifies covered judicial outcomes and exclusions, including the distinction concerning interim judgments. A private settlement or uncompleted proceeding should not automatically be treated as an enforceable treaty judgment. Determine the legal character of the instrument and the formalities required where assets are pursued. A Turkish carrier’s involvement does not dispense with the foreign enforcement process.

The special starting event is not always the paying carrier’s bank transfer

Article 39(4) applies Article 32 to claims between carriers but changes the starting event. The period begins with the final judicial decision fixing Convention compensation or, where there is no such decision, actual payment. Keep both dates where a judgment and later payment exist. Waiting until payment to begin calculating every recourse deadline can therefore give the wrong result.

Article 32 supplies the ordinary one-year period and its stated three-year misconduct exception. The applicable category must be examined from the actual claim and facts. A carrier should not assume that allegations in the original cargo case automatically establish a longer period for every recourse demand. Record the legal basis and supporting conduct instead of using a label without analysis.

Where payment was made in instalments or the original decision was challenged, supply the complete procedural and payment history for calculation. The treaty’s wording must be applied to the actual final decision and payment structure. An accounts department’s date for closing the file is not a substitute for the legally relevant event.

Written claims, rejection and document return need a separate record

Article 32(2)’s written-claim suspension rule addresses rejection in writing, return of attached documents and repeated claims with the same object. Preserve those communications in the recourse file. Paragraph (4) also prevents a time-barred right from being exercised by counterclaim or set-off. Keeping an unpaid amount on an internal ledger does not avoid that treaty restriction.

Establish who holds the recovery right after insurance payment

An insurer’s payment can introduce subrogation, assignment or other recovery issues under the applicable insurance law and documents. Identify whether compensation was paid by the carrier, paid for it, or paid under a cargo policy to another claimant. Do not assume that the same entity holds every recourse right merely because it handled the original correspondence.

Present the recourse demand as a supported allocation

Provide the single carriage contract, acceptance and handover records, condition evidence, original claim and proceeding, notices to other carriers, judgment or settlement, payment proof and contribution calculation. State whether Articles 37(a), (b), (c), 38 or an Article 40 agreement supplies the allocation. The demand should identify each defendant’s share, the supporting evidence and the correctly calculated limitation position.

Frequently asked questions

Does every transport subcontract create successive-carrier recourse?

No. Establish the conditions in Articles 34–35, including the single-contract structure and the relevant acceptance of goods and consignment note.

Can a carrier recover compensation it paid to the cargo claimant?

Article 37 provides recourse for compensation paid in accordance with CMR, subject to its status and allocation requirements.

What happens when one carrier caused the loss?

Article 37(a) places the compensation responsibility on that carrier, whether it or another carrier paid the original claimant.

How is compensation divided when responsibility cannot be apportioned?

Article 37(b) uses the share of carriage payment due to the relevant carriers where its responsibility apportionment cannot be made. Paragraph (c) addresses unidentified attribution.

What if a carrier cannot pay because it is insolvent?

Article 38 reallocates its unpaid compensation share among the other carriers by the stated carriage-payment proportions.

Can carriers agree different contribution rules?

Article 40 allows agreed departures from Articles 37 and 38. It is not an unrestricted exception to every CMR rule.

When is a carrier prevented from disputing an earlier compensation payment?

Article 39(1) requires judicial determination of the amount after that carrier had due notice and an opportunity to appear. Each condition must be established.

Does a private settlement automatically satisfy Article 39(1)?

No. The paragraph specifies judicial determination and procedural participation conditions. A settlement requires its own evidence and recourse assessment.

When does limitation begin for the recourse claim?

Article 39(4) refers to the final judicial decision fixing compensation or, without such a decision, actual payment, with Article 32 otherwise applying.

Can a time-barred recourse demand simply be deducted from later invoices?

Article 32(4) bars exercising the time-barred right by counterclaim or set-off. The actual claim and limitation position require assessment.

Primary legal sources

CMR Convention, Articles 1, 3, 8–9 and 31–41; United Nations depositary status. Reviewed on 26 October 2026.