Which Law Governs International Carriage of Goods to or from Turkey? MÖHUK Article 29 and Carrier Connection

1. Article 29 is the special contractual rule for carriage of goods

International transport disputes contain several different legal layers. The transport contract has a governing law; international conventions can impose directly applicable liability rules; public regulations govern customs, road traffic, dangerous goods and sanctions; and the goods sale contract can have a different governing law altogether.

MÖHUK Article 29 addresses the governing law of the carriage contract. It should therefore be distinguished from Article 24 general contracts and from substantive Turkish Commercial Code transport provisions.

The first classification question is whether the agreement is truly carriage of goods or a mixed logistics, warehousing, forwarding or supply contract.

2. Party autonomy comes first

Article 29 permits the sender and carrier to choose the law governing their carriage contract. A clear clause can reduce uncertainty in international logistics chains.

However, a chosen national law does not contract out of a mandatory international convention. Where the CMR, Montreal Convention or mandatory maritime rules apply, the treaty or mandatory statute can govern within its scope.

The choice clause should therefore be drafted together with dispute resolution, transport mode, liability limits and convention language.

3. Without choice, the carrier’s principal establishment matters only with an additional connection

Article 29 does not say that the carrier’s home law always governs. The carrier’s principal establishment at the date of contract supplies the default only when one of three additional connecting points is in the same country: receipt of the goods for carriage, agreed delivery, or the sender’s principal establishment.

This dual-connection requirement is easy to overlook. A carrier incorporated in Germany but receiving goods in Türkiye for delivery to Bulgaria from a Turkish sender may not automatically trigger German law merely because the carrier’s headquarters are German.

The contract and actual transport documents should identify the relevant places precisely.

4. The place where goods are received for carriage can connect the contract to the carrier’s home law

The statutory phrase concerns the place where the carrier takes over the goods, not merely the factory’s registered address or the place the sales contract was signed.

In containerised or multimodal transport the handover point may differ from the physical loading point. Bills of lading, CMR consignment notes, warehouse receipts and booking confirmations can identify the contractual takeover point.

The place should be established from the carriage agreement, not inferred from one party’s invoice address.

5. The agreed delivery place has two roles in Article 29

If the agreed delivery place is in the same country as the carrier’s principal establishment, that supports application of the carrier’s home law under the first default rule.

If the carrier connection test is not satisfied, the agreed place of delivery becomes the fallback law under Article 29.

This makes the destination clause legally significant beyond logistics. Parties should distinguish final commercial destination from an intermediate terminal or delivery to a freight forwarder.

6. The sender’s principal establishment can complete the carrier-law connection

Where the sender and carrier have their principal establishments in the same country, Article 29 can point to that country’s law even if the physical route crosses several states.

The legal sender should be identified accurately. A manufacturer can hand goods to a carrier while a trading company is the contractual sender.

Corporate group arrangements should not substitute a parent company for the entity actually contracting with the carrier.

7. If the carrier’s home country lacks the required second connection, destination law governs

Article 29 then points to the law of the country where the agreed place of delivery is located.

This rule often connects the carriage to the destination market. A Turkish exporter using a foreign carrier for delivery to France can therefore face French contract law in the absence of a valid choice, depending on the precise Article 29 connections.

The result should be checked against applicable conventions before calculating liability.

8. A manifestly closer relationship can displace the statutory presumption

Article 29 allows another law to apply where the circumstances as a whole show a more closely connected legal system.

Relevant factors can include where the route is organised, where transport assets and personnel are based, the parties’ establishments, repeated dealings and the location of the operational centre.

The exception prevents formal connecting points from producing an artificial result in a commercially centred relationship.

9. The CMR Convention can govern road-carriage liability directly

Türkiye is a party to the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR). For covered international road carriage, the CMR establishes substantive rules on the consignment note, carrier liability, reservations, limitation and jurisdiction.

The governing national law still matters for issues not settled by the CMR, but a party should not apply Article 29 as if the Convention did not exist.

Our Road Cargo Damage in Turkey guide explains CMR notice and liability issues rather than conflict law.

10. Road carriage from Germany to Turkey may involve CMR plus Article 29 gap-filling law

A German-to-Turkish road shipment can fall within the CMR because the agreed points of taking over and delivery are in different contracting states.

If a dispute concerns an issue the CMR does not regulate, Article 29 can identify the national law filling that gap.

The parties should therefore plead treaty and national law in the correct order.

11. Sea carriage has its own mandatory commercial-law framework

Maritime bills of lading and charter arrangements can involve the Turkish Commercial Code, international conventions, standard-form clauses and foreign-law choices.

Article 29 can still be relevant to the carriage-contract conflicts question, but maritime-specific rules must be classified first.

A Hamburg–Mersin bill of lading can also contain foreign jurisdiction or arbitration clauses that require separate enforceability review.

12. Air cargo can be governed by international air-carriage conventions

International carriage by air can fall under the Montreal Convention, which contains mandatory liability rules and jurisdiction provisions.

A national governing-law clause cannot override Convention rules within their scope.

Article 29 remains relevant for contractual issues left to national law.

13. Multimodal carriage requires segment and contract classification

One logistics contract can involve truck, ship, rail and warehouse segments. The applicable legal regime may differ according to whether one carrier undertook the whole transport or separate contracts were concluded.

Network liability clauses, through bills of lading and mandatory modal conventions must be analysed before selecting national law.

The factual location of loss or damage can affect which regime applies.

14. Freight forwarding is not always carriage

A freight forwarder may merely organise transport on behalf of the customer or may assume carrier responsibility. The contract’s legal character depends on obligations undertaken.

If the forwarder acts only as an intermediary, Article 30 representation or Article 24 general contract rules can be relevant instead of Article 29.

Invoices and commercial titles such as “logistics provider” are not decisive without reading the agreement.

15. Transport documents provide the connecting facts

CMR notes, bills of lading, airway bills, booking confirmations, freight invoices and delivery receipts can establish carrier, sender, receipt point, destination and contractual terms.

Parties should preserve originals or reliable electronic records, including standard terms incorporated by reference.

The choice-of-law clause can appear in general conditions rather than the face of the transport document, so incorporation must be checked.

16. Governing law does not determine forum automatically

CMR, maritime conventions, MÖHUK and arbitration agreements can each contain jurisdiction rules.

A Turkish-law carriage contract can be litigated abroad if a valid jurisdiction rule points there, and a Turkish court can apply foreign carriage law where it has jurisdiction.

Forum analysis should therefore precede filing.

17. Foreign carriage law can be proved in Turkish court

MÖHUK Article 2 requires the Turkish judge to apply the foreign law designated by conflict rules ex officio.

Parties can assist with statutes, commercial codes, treaty interpretation, case law and expert opinions.

The foreign-law submission should distinguish treaty rules from national gap-filling rules.

Conclusion

MÖHUK Article 29 gives international carriage contracts a specialised conflict structure. Party choice comes first. Without choice, the carrier’s principal-establishment law needs one of three additional connections; otherwise the agreed delivery-place law governs, subject to a closer-connection exception. CMR, Montreal and maritime regimes can apply directly and must be considered before national law. A cargo dispute should therefore begin with transport mode, treaty scope, contractual parties and the exact loading/delivery connections.