On the Additional Validity Requirements for the Effectiveness of Jurisdiction Clauses in Bills of Lading

/in , , /by

It is common practice in the international maritime transport of goods for shipping lines to offer their own general conditions of contract, and for the rest of the actors in the sector to adhere to them. Therefore, the consignees, receivers of the goods carried under the bill of lading (B/L), do not in practice have the capacity to negotiate the terms of these documents; but by acquiring the bill of lading, they succeed to the shipper’s rights and obligations. The clauses conferring jurisdiction to resolve possible disputes that may arise between the parties are also included in these general conditions.

Law 14/2014, of 24 July, on Maritime Navigation (LMN), has tried to protect these consignees by drafting articles 251 and 468 of the LMN. Article 251 of the LMN provides that the acquirer of the bill of lading is also the acquirer of all the rights and actions of the transferor over the goods, except for those referring to jurisdiction and arbitration agreements, which should be adjusted to the provisions of Article 468 LMN, which establishes that clauses of submission to foreign jurisdiction or arbitration abroad that have not been negotiated individually or separately will be null and void.

This is the issue raised in our post ‘Scope of the international jurisdiction clause in Bills of Lading’ of 14 May 2024. Following the judgment of 25 April 2024 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in cases C-345/22 to C-347/22, resolving the questions referred to in a preliminary ruling by the Provincial Court of Pontevedra, it is now the turn of the mentioned court to deliver its judgment.

Since the adoption of the LMN, the Provincial Courts have interpreted differently the reference made by the CJEU in the case of ‘Coreck Maritime GmbH v Handelsveem BV and others (C-387/98)’ to the ‘applicable national law’ of the State hearing the dispute in relation to the enforceability of these clauses against third parties:

  • The law governing the substantive validity of the jurisdiction agreement, which according to Article 25(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation is the law of the State whose courts have been designated by the parties, including the rules of private international law (cf. Article 20 of the Regulation).
  • The national law which, according to the rules of private international law of the forum, governs the legal relationship whose succession is in dispute.
  • The lex fori (the domestic law of the State before whose courts the action is brought).

In this respect, and as the CJEU did in its response to the questions raised, the Provincial Court of Pontevedra is clear in stating that ‘when Community case law refers to domestic law to judge on the transfer of rights in the security, that domestic rule is not necessarily Art. 251 LMN, but the reference must be understood as being made to the rules of private international law’. Therefore, according to the Provincial Court of Pontevedra in its ruling, we must look for the applicable conflict rule. In accordance with the facts in dispute, whether applying the Rome I Regulation or art.10.3 Spanish Civil Code (even in application of arts. 100, 102 and 165 of Law 19/1985 of 16 July 1985 on Exchange and Cheque), conflict rules lead to the same point, and not to Spanish law; in the contested case it would be Peruvian substantive law that would be applicable to the enforceability of these clauses. However, in these cases, the parties did not prove the content and validity of the foreign law, so the court understood that it should refer to domestic law according to the general rules contained in art.33.3 of Law 29/2015, of 30 July on International Legal Cooperation in Civil Matters. It is thanks to the lack of proof of foreign law that the Provincial Court of Pontevedra applies the Maritime Navigation Act. This was essential for the Court of Justice of the European Union to be able to rule on the second question, i.e. whether inserting additional validity requirements for the effectiveness of jurisdiction clauses in bills of lading is contrary to the Brussels I bis Regulation.

And in this sense, the Provincial Court of Pontevedra upholds the thesis of the CJEU, when it rules: the principle of the primacy of EU law makes it necessary to invalidate the last paragraph of the provision, which provides for an exception to full subrogation in respect of jurisdiction and arbitration clauses. Excluding that rule, Community legislation and case law must be applied, which admits the provision of the plaintiff’s consent in the form in which it is set out in the title (cf. art. 35.1 [sic] of the Brussels I bis Regulation), thereby overriding the requirement that the recipient addressee, holder of the knowledge, express its consent individually and separately’. In other words, EU Member States cannot add in their substantive law additional requirements to those foreseen by Art. 25(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

Thus, the Provincial Court of Pontevedra affirms the effectiveness against third parties of the clauses conferring jurisdiction contained in the B/L and declares the lack of jurisdiction of the Spanish courts to hear the dispute, in favour of the court of the United Kingdom specified in the clause. Therefore, the clause will be enforceable against the third party holder of the B/L provided that it has been recognised as valid in the relationship between the shipper and the carrier that concluded the contract and that the third party has been subrogated to all the rights and obligations of one of these original parties, in accordance with the applicable national law, determined by virtue of the rules of private international law of the Member State hearing the dispute. Where the clause grants jurisdiction to the courts of an EU state, the manner in which consent is given is not governed by national law as long as it departs from the formal and substantive validity requirements of Art. 25 BIT-bis).  The LMN, as currently drafted, will only become operational when the Brussels I bis Regulation or an international treaty standard does not apply.

The resolution of the question undoubtedly limits the application of Article 251 of the LMN.

In the case at hand, which occurred in pre-Brexit times, the UK was still a member state of the EU, so the form of consent was that of Art.25 RBI-bis, as it is to any jurisdiction clause in favour of European courts. However, after Brexit, the jurisdiction clause in favour of UK courts, which is very common, would no longer be subject to the aforementioned European regulation and could therefore be subject to the regime of the Maritime Navigation Act. Without its individual and separate negotiation it would not be recognised, like any other clause in favour of non-European courts or arbitration clauses.

Laura Cabello Joins the Aiyon Algeciras Office

/in , , , , , /by

Following the departure of Rocío López, to whom we wish her all the best in her new career and with whom we continue to work closely, the new lawyer of the team, Laura Cabello, now attends the AIYON office in Algeciras together with the partner in charge of the office, José Antonio Domínguez.

After a few months of adaptation in our Cadiz office, working in direct contact with the two local partners on all kinds of cases, Laura now faces the challenges of an important logistics hub such as the Port of Algeciras, which has a strategic geographical location, her daily activity being a true reflection of the relevance of the maritime and logistics sector in general in the province of Cadiz.

Laura, a member of the Malaga Bar Association, holds a Law Degree from the University of Cadiz (2017) and a Master’s Degree in Access to the Legal Profession from the Malaga Bar Association (2022). She also has a specialisation in International Maritime Law from the Universidad Pontificia de Comillas (Madrid) ICADE- in collaboration with the Spanish Maritime Institute – IME (2023), with specific training in navigation areas, maritime safety, inspection, certification of ships and prevention of maritime pollution.

During her time at university, Laura actively participated in conferences and congresses organised by the Department of International Public Law of the University of Cadiz, where she had the opportunity to deepen her knowledge of key issues of International Law; knowledge that she later expanded with an in-depth study of procedural law.

After successfully passing the entrance exam to the Spanish Bar in June 2022, she completed several internships in the banking sector, where she put into practice her expertise in the development and drafting of lawsuits, appeals and foreclosure of mortgage deeds. She also conducted pre-trial and trial hearings in banking and criminal proceedings.

Given the interest she has always shown in international practice, in July 2024 she joined AIYON Abogados, where she is working in the different areas of maritime law, inland transport law and international trade law, specialising in the management of claims on maritime and inland transport contracts, administrative sanctioning procedures for ships, recovery and maritime insurance.

Revised Limits of Liability Under the Montreal Convention 1999

/in , /by

In 2024, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has proceeded to review the liability limits in accordance with the provisions of Article 24 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, done in Montreal on May 28, 1999 – Montreal Convention of 1999, which states that the liability limits prescribed in Articles 21, 22 and 23 relating to destruction, loss, damage or delay of passengers, cargo or baggage, established in Special Drawing Rights (SDR), will be reviewed every five years.

Since it was rules in 1999, the Montreal Convention has suffered variations with respect to the limits originally established both in 2009 and in 2019, this being the latest modification, which will take effect on December 28, 2024.

Consequently, and with the appropriate exceptions or requirements to be reviewed in the Montreal Convention for each of the items, articles 21 and 22 of the Montreal Convention are modified as set forth below:

  • Article 21, compensation in case of death or injury of passengers: 151,880 SDR
  • Article 22.1, in case of damage caused by delay in the transport of people: 6,303 SDR
  • Articles 22.2, in case of destruction, loss, damage or delay in the transport of baggage: 1,519 SDR
  • Article 22.3, in case of destruction, loss, damage or delay in the transport of cargo: 26 SDR

This amendment to articles 21 and 22 of the Montreal Convention has been published in the Spanish Official Gazette num. 50, dated 27 February 2025.

AIYON collaborates with the ‘Diario del Puerto’ in its report ‘Legal Allies’

/in , , , , , , /by

The special report entitled ‘Legal Allies’, recently published by the specialised newspaper of the logistics and transport sector, ‘Diario del Puerto’, has counted on the collaboration of our colleagues Verónica Meana and Zuberoa Elorriaga, among other professionals of the sector.

After analysing the various questions posed to us, which covered different aspects of our work and included our vision for the future in the face of new challenges, we discussed aspects such as the value of advice and prevention in conflict areas, the most common deficiencies and lack of knowledge in the sector, the role we play as lawyers and its importance in the transport sector, as well as the future challenges facing the world of transport, our lawyers provided their perspective, based on their broad and varied experience.

For her part, Zuberoa Elorriaga commented that the lack of the proper coordination and joint vision that should exist between the purchase and sale operation and the subsequent transport operation can give rise to claims and disputes, which could be avoided with good prior advice. We are talking about both the logistics operation and the insurance that accompanies it.

It considers that the transport phase must be highlighted as an essential complement that complements and perfects the sale and purchase from which it derives. Therefore, correct management of routes and delivery times to avoid delays or damage to the goods is essential, a task that always involves a cost if we want to guarantee a correct service at the hands of professionals.

Verónica Meana, in turn, explained that the EU’s growing demands to reduce emissions are forcing the transport sector to look for alternatives, such as the use of electric vehicles or cleaner fuels. All of this is causing concern among operators about the high costs of adapting their fleets, whether by sea, air or land, which will be required by the new regulation.

In addition, she points out that the delay in adopting digital solutions for optimising operations or complying with environmental regulations, and the lack of robustly implemented protocols among employees of transport companies to make them less susceptible to cyber-attacks, are factors that can be improved with good research and planning.

Access to the publication…

AIYON Abogados, a Decade at the Service of Maritime and Transport Law

/in , , , , , , /by

‘El Canal Marítimo y Logístico’ took advantage of the celebration of the annual meeting of AIYON Abogados S.L.P. to meet in Bilbao with the five partners of the firm. Close to celebrating 10 years in the market, each of them pointed out the strengths of their multidisciplinary team of lawyers, as well as the different challenges they face on a daily basis from their offices located in Madrid, Cadiz, Bilbao and Algeciras.

We invite you to rea the article in its entirety from the link at the end of this article, highlighting below some of the statements made by the partners.

As expert lawyers in chartering and leasing of vessels, both for general cargo and project cargo, AIYON has also been specializing in off.shore construction projects. In this regard, AIYON’s partner in Bilbao, Mikel Garteiz-goxeaskoa, states, ‘This experience has given us the opportunity to assist from our Bilbao office local companies such as SAITEC Offshore Technologies, S.L., in projects as innovative as the launching and installation of its DemoSATH floating offshore wind platform in the BIMEP test area (Armintza), in the open sea two miles off the coast, and in waters 90 meters deep, as AIYON aspires to be a benchmark for companies operating in this sector due to its in-depth knowledge of Maritime Law in all its areas’.

With regard to the specific offshore wind sector, Mikel Garteiz-goxeaskoa highlights the firm’s strengths: ‘In addition to our knowledge and experience, we also have a large international network of collaborating lawyers, also specialized in these matters, mainly from the United Kingdom and Northern Europe. This allows us to rely at all times on up-to-date professionals in their respective jurisdictions to resolve any issued that may arise in the negotiation of the contracts concerned.’

When asked about their latest performances in Madrid, the firm’s partner, Verónica Meana, points our that: ‘We have recently seen in the office a notable increase in the number of cases that are resolved in institutional arbitration in these matters, either under CIAM or ICC rules, compared to the percentage of cases that go to court, which is still higher. This increase, although independent, runs parallel to the firm’s involvement in the Maritime Law working group within the Spanish Maritime Law Association in collaborating with CIAM, in an effort to promote maritime arbitration in Spain as an efficient and quality alternative means of dispute resolution.’

AIYON’s involvement in the teaching and preparation of the new generations is part of its hallmark, a fact that Verónica wants to highlight: ‘On the other hand, form Madrid, as from the rest of our offices, we continue to contribute to the teaching of maritime law. In my case, participating as a lecturer in the Master’s degree of both the IME (Spanish Maritime Institute) and the ISDE (Higher Institute of Law and Economics) in the subjects of maritime law and land transport.’

‘In Aiyon we know what it means to be at the side of both maritime and land carriers on a daily basis’, says Enrique Ortiz, partner of the Cadiz office. ‘And we know what it is like to be there for them both in normal circumstances and in urgent situations that require quick action (such as refusals of delivery by receivers, accidents, blocking of the means of transport by the authorities, etc.). What’s more, in exceptional circumstances, such as during the Covid confinement period or during the road transport stoppages and strikes that took place throughout the country between March and April 2022, our customers have always been able to counts on us.’

In fact, the situation in times of strikes and stoppages in the transport sector was not easy for the companies dedicated to land transport, and many of them, due to the convulsions of the time, even suffered damage to their vehicles caused by a group of people who, in favour of the strike during those dates, ‘took it’, in an absolutely vehement manner, against the vehicles in question. In relation to these events, which occurred to a significant number of road haulage companies and vehicles, Enrique can confirm that AIYON has recently managed to obtain, for one of its clients, a favourable ruling in the first instance, subject to appeal, against the Insurance Compensation Consortium, ensuring that concepts such as ‘riot’ and ‘extraordinary risk’ are not emptied of content, thereby rendering ineffective the coverage of claims that correspond to the Insurance Compensation Consortium. Let us not forget that the Consortium collects part of the premiums that insured hauliers pay to their insurance companies.

Asked about the great activity of the Port of Algeciras, our partner in the location, José Domínguez, tells us: ‘The port of Algeciras occupies a pre-eminent position within the Spanish port system. From our office in Algeciras, we provide ‘dockside’ assistance to shipping companies that provide passenger and goods transport services, both containers and roll-on/roll-off cargo in the Strait of Gibraltar, constantly advising not only in the day-to-day handling of all types of cargo and passengers claims, but also in the planning and management phases of the shipping companies to face challenges such as those of the so-called Operation Crossing the Strait (OPE). To this end, we regularly advise on charterparties, slot charters, shipbuilding and ship repair contracts, ancillary contracts and agreements such as stevedoring, confinement, etc. This is a part of the business that I particularly enjoy, as my background as a merchant seafarer is of great help to our clients, as I speak the same language as they do.’

Another of the most important traffics of Algeciras is the supply of fuel to ships, the so-called bunkering. Domínguez indicates in this respect that: ‘Algeciras is one of the most important bunkering ports in the Mediterranean. The maritime traffic through the Strait of Gibraltar, together with the magnificent anchorage of the port, make our port especially attractive for this type of operations. The figures that are handled are very relevant, close to 350,000 tons of oil products to ships, at a rate of approximately 200 ships supplied per month by a fleet of more than 15 barges of different sizes.’

For her part, Zuberoa Elorriaga, AIYON partner in Bilbao, points out that, in their almost 10 years as active partners, the common effort and trajectory has brought them together, allowing them to learn from each other: ‘Together with the rest of the firm’s staff, we form a close-knit team that encourages cooperation between offices and lawyers. It is not an easy sector as we face different challenges every day, with often complex cases and different actors involved, so the best way to work is to support each other and share experiences, which will always result in a better service for our clients.’

Finally, Zuberoa makes special mention of the continuous learning that the firm’s team is committed to pursuing, proof of which is the Postgraduate Course in Aeronautics and Space Law at the Faculty of Law (ICADE) of the Universidad Pontificia de Comillas, which she completed in 2021, opening up new areas of activity for the firm.

Listening to its partners, it is clear that in Aiyon Abogados they face this first decade of work and common effort as the beginning of a long and productive professional career looking to the future with optimism.

Read the article…

Complaints to Spanish State Aviation Safety Agency (AESA), an Option for Air Transport Users

/in , /by

Further to our post Order TMA/201/2022, of 14 March: New procedure for the settlement of disputes in favour of air transport users we must now refer to Order TMA/469/2023 of 17 April accrediting the Spanish Aviation Safety Agency (AESA) as an alternative dispute resolution entity in the field of air transport.

In our previous post we already anticipated that AESA had to obtain such accreditation to provide the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) service to air transport users: ‘The procedure shall apply to incidents occurring after the first day of the month following publication in the ‘Boletín Oficial del Estado’. Order TMA/469/2023 having been published in the BOE of 10 May 2023, it will apply from 2 June 2023.

To activate this procedure, the first step is always to make a prior complaint to the airline and try to reach an amicable agreement with them. This first contact is expressly referred to in Article 6 of Order TMA/201/2022 of 14 March, as a step prior to initiating the alternative dispute resolution procedure before AESA. From the day of the incident, the user has 5 years to complain, and the airline should resolve the complaint within 1 month. If no reply is received or if the reply is not satisfactory, the affected person has 1 year from the date of the previous complaint to the airline to start the complaint procedure before AESA.

To do so, users must fill in a form provided by the Agency, adding the required documents. It is not until all the documents are available that the 90 calendar day deadline for AESA to resolve the complaint begins. However, this is also the beginning of the 21-day period within which to reject the complaint, without prejudice to the possible review to be requested at a later date by the interested party.

If the complaint is accepted, the airline or airport operator complained of shall be heard, as appropriate, and the complaint and documentation submitted by the affected party shall be forwarded to it. This is how a process of allegations and evidence is initiated between the parties, in which the Agency intervenes, and which will at all times inform the parties of their rights via its website.

The AESA Director will decide by means of a reasoned decision and will determine the measures to be applied in the case in question. As we have already reported, this decision will be binding on the carrier concerned, unlike before 2 June 2023. In principle, therefore, the carrier is obliged to comply with the decision and to send the Agency proof of compliance as soon as the decision is made. They must also inform the Agency whether they have contested the decision, which will be dealt with in the appropriate procedural area.

Legal claims by the passenger or the affected party, either as a challenge or as an original claim, are in practice channelled through oral proceedings due to their limited amount. However, should this scenario arise, other possible options to pursue financial claims, such as payment order proceedings, will have to be considered.

This regulation is a good proposal which, in addition to protecting passengers in complying with this regulation, aims to relieve the commercial courts of small claims, which could be resolved at an administrative level, with the help of AESA.

The long-term success of this procedure will depend on the real commitment of the parties to respect the Agency’s decisions, as in many cases airlines do not comply with the decision voluntarily and there is no subsequent follow-up of the case by AESA, so that consumers may decide to go directly ‘to court’, which means that the ultimate aim of this dispute resolution procedure would not have the intended effect.

Irantzu Sedano represents the Bar Association of Bizkaia in the 5th International Human Rights Public Speaking Competition for Young Lawyers, organised by the FBE in Gdansk (Poland)

/in , , /by

From 5 to 7 September 2024, our colleague Irantzu Sedano participated in the ‘5th International Human Rights Public Speaking Competition for Young Lawyers’, organised by the European Federation of Bar Associations in Gdansk, Poland.

Showing its commitment not only to the legal field but also to the defence of fundamental values at the international level, the FBE brought together young lawyers from all over the world to discuss human rights and their relevance and impact at the international level.

In her speech, Irantzu highlighted the impact of maritime transport on climate change and its direct relationship with fundamental rights. She emphasised how global warming, exacerbated by emissions from freight transport, affects, in many cases disproportionately, the most vulnerable communities, thereby compromising essential rights such as access to life, health and housing, and then she linked this issue to new European environmental legislation, in particular the ‘EU Emission Trading System’ and the ‘Fit for 55’ legislative package. Legislation that seeks a phased decarbonisation of the maritime sector, and which is being criticised and praised in equal measure.

Irantzu underlined that these regulations, although ambitious and necessary, also face important challenges in their implementation, especially in terms of port infrastructure and competitiveness of European companies.

This is not the first event of international scope in which Irantzu has made her mark. In 2023 she also had the opportunity to participate in the ‘Contracts Competition’, a leading meeting for young lawyers specialising in commercial law and contracts, held in Lisbon, which demonstrates our strong commitment to the The Bar Association of Bizkaia, where part of our team, including Irantzu Sedano, actively participates in the ‘Maritime Law Commission’ and the ‘International Relations Commission’.

Without a doubt, participating in these events allows us not only to exchange knowledge with other professionals from around the world, but also to gain new perspectives on the global challenges facing the legal sector, thus enriching our professional vision and experience in different global discussion forums.

All of which is a reflection of the firm commitment of Aiyon Abogados with the continuous training of its lawyers and the expansion of its international relations, both essential pillars for the good development of our work, especially in a sector that is so globalized and in constant change as the logistics and transport sector.

The Relationship between “Extraordinary Circumstances” and Travel Cancellation/Delay in Air Law

/in , /by

It is not an opinion, but a fact, that air transport is the safest means of travel, allowing the movement of cargo and passengers in a short space of time, and this on the basis of the significant distances that are travelled.

That said, the experience of frequent air travellers is subject to the very constraints of this mode of travel, which means that they are exposed to delays, most of them short but sometimes significant, as well as to unforeseen cancellations of their journey.

Except for certain, proven and weighty reasons that can be alleged (for example, notably adverse and public weather conditions at an airport), when airlines are complained about by passengers due to a delay or cancellation, it is not unusual for them to use as an excuse a brief argument of rejection alleging having suffered “extraordinary circumstances”, even when the affected parties do not know what these alleged circumstances are, of which they have had no notice or, simply, were received at the time as mere rumours in the boarding lounge, without coming from any reliable source whatsoever.

As a general rule, the applicable rules for compensating European passengers are those set out in the European Regulation 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air.

Regulations that affect Spain, as well as the rulings that are issued in the study and resolution of each case of claims for delay/cancellation that have as their source the national courts, as well as those issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

In principle, “extraordinary circumstances” are defined as unforeseeable, unavoidable situations due to external factors on the flight, which exempt airlines from paying compensation as force majeure. For its part, the European Regulation 261/2004 considers extraordinary circumstances to be situations that could not have been avoided even if the airline had taken all reasonable measures to avoid them.

This concept is undoubtedly subject to interpretation by the law and jurisprudence that develop it, and must be nuanced, which is why the application or not of this inconclusive concept has been studied case by case, assessing whether it was applicable to the rejection put forward by the airline in question. The onus is on the carrier to prove that these extraordinary circumstances were unavoidable, even if reasonable measures were taken, and that, once they arose, the actions taken were adequate to avoid, as far as possible, the cancellation or delay (both preventive and reactive actions).

Clearly, the reasonable measures to be taken by an air carrier must be technically and economically feasible, based on the fact that routes and flights have been planned to reduce the risks of delay and cancellation.

In short, we must bear in mind that when a passenger is offered a rejection of his right to compensation on the grounds of “extraordinary circumstances” alleged by the airline, the implications behind this allegation are greater than just sending the passenger a catch phrase, without the passenger being able to object to anything in defence of his right.

Therefore, three requirements are necessary: (i) the disruptive event must be qualified as an “extraordinary circumstance”; (ii) there must be a direct causal link between the event and the cancellation/delay; (iii) the event became unavoidable, even if reasonable measures had been taken, and the carrier must take action to avoid the cancellation/delay.

This issue, like many others inherent to the world of transport, highlights the main need in the case of events occurring that disrupt the agreed transport, and that is that a fair balance must always be sought between avoiding airlines being forced to make an evidentiary effort in the course of their daily business when a cancellation/delay event occurs, together with the duty to adequately protect passengers’ rights.

Resolution of 22 May 2023 of the Directorate General for Land Transport – Systems and Requirements to Be Met by Electronic Administrative Control Documents in Road Transport

/in , /by

In this article we would like to highlight the content of the Resolution of 22 May 2023, issued by the Directorate General for Land Transport, which establishes the requirements and systems that must be met by administrative control documents in electronic format for road transport in Spain, derived from Article 222.2 of the Regulation of the Land Transport Law. Article which, in accordance with Royal Decree 1211/1990, of 28 September, and its subsequent modifications, establishes the essential characteristics that the supports and computer applications used for the completion and management of this transport documentation must have.

Previously, in order to ensure that control documentation in electronic format meets the characteristics of availability, integrity, inalterability and inviolability of its content, as well as to determine the way in which copies of this control documentation must be obtained by the personnel of the Inspection Services and the agents of the transport surveillance forces when they are issued using electronic means, the Directorate General issued the Resolution of 13 February 2020, which established the characteristics that the administrative control documents in electronic format required in road transport must meet, which has now been repealed.

Thus, having established a new method of communication of the data collected in the various control documents, it was considered necessary to extend the new methods of communication to facilitate the activity of the hauliers themselves, reducing the administrative burden for drivers and companies.

The main requirements highlighted in the Resolution of 22 May 2023 include:

a) Characteristics of Computer Supports and Applications:

  • Accessibility for all eligible parties.
  • Ensuring secure storage and effective transmission of documents.
  • Specific requirements for electronic signatures: ensuring their binding to the signatory, identification, exclusive control and detection of modifications.

b) Systems and Requirements for Control by Inspection Services:

  • Implementation of two modalities: via numerical code with subsequent electronic delivery, or via QR code leading to a PDF repository.
  • Technical standards such as PDF/A format and size limitations (up to 4 MB).
  • Prior obligation to communicate the domain of storage and exclusive use of HTTPS connections by companies.

In any case, we must emphasise that the main objective of this regulation is to optimise the administrative management of road transport, ensuring the integrity, inalterability, inviolability of its content and availability of the required documentation.

The explicit repeal of the previous Resolution of 13 February 2020 only underlines the continuous updating and adaptation of sectoral regulations to technological developments and the operational needs of land transport. This sector is continuously evolving in order to facilitate trade between countries when it requires an agile and efficient means of transport, such as land transport.

The Nature of the Time Limit for the Exercise of Claims for Loss or Damage to Goods under the Hague-Visby Rules – Limitation or Expiry?

/in , /by

The recent judgement no. 185/2024 of the 4th Section of the Murcia Provincial Court dated 8 February 2024, reviewing the case law referring to the nature of the one (1) year period for the exercise of claims for loss or damage during carriage by sea under a bill of lading established by the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Bills of Lading signed on 25 August 1924, as amended by the Protocols of 23 February 1968 and 21 December 1979, the Hague-Visby Rules, has taken a position in favour of the figure of expiry of time.

The aforementioned ruling therefore joins other rulings in favour of expiry of time, such as, for example, No. 269/2023 of 26 January 2023 of the 1st Section of the Provincial Court of Pontevedra, to which it refers to summarise the controversy. The latter, in turn, cites Supreme Court judgments No 328/1983 of 7 June 1983, No 43/1984 of 31 January 1984, No 339/1984 of 30 May 1984, No 56/1985 of 29 January 1985 and No 583/1985 of 11 October 1985, which declare that the time limit provided for in Article 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules is one of limitation.

Referring to other judgments which, on the contrary, have declared that this period is a limitation period and not an expiry period, the aforementioned judgment no. 185/2024 of the Murcia Provincial Court, which is the subject of this article, also agrees with the judgment of the Pontevedra Provincial Court of 26 January 2023 in that, although article 278. 4 and Article 286 of the Maritime Navigation Act, when regulating the contractual carrier’s recourse actions against the actual carrier and the actions arising from the charterparty, use the expression “limitation” not “expiry”, this should not lead to error since the Hague-Visby Rules are of preferential application to national regulations and their interpretation must be made in accordance with them. Hence, coinciding with the criterion of the judgement of the 28th Section of the Madrid Provincial Court nº 357/2021 of 14 October, the analysed judgement of the Murcia Provincial Court states that the scope of application of articles 278 and 286 of the Maritime Navigation Act must be redirected to the contract of carriage of goods by sea, excluding that which takes place under the bill of lading regime, which is subject to a limitation period.