Cour d'appel de Lyon, 27 février 2020, n° 18/01663
Item
Référence
Cour d'appel de Lyon, 27 février 2020, n° 18/01663
Convention
Convention de Montréal
Article
Article 18
19
38
19
38
Pays
France
Juridiction
Cour d'appel de Lyon
Composition de la juridiction
Mme Rachou (président) ; Mme Clément (conseiller) ; M. Isola (conseiller)
Résumé
In order to clear its cargo at the Casablanca port, a company has the customs documents sent to its headquarters at Lyon. Following the arrival at Lyon airport, the carrier deposits the documents at a pick up station close to the company's office. The pick up station being closed for one month, the documents remain inaccessible for the company ; the customs clearing being thus being impossible, the company is exposed to storage cost at the Casablanca port.
Attendu
The custom documents were carried by aircraft to the Lyon airport. Since the carrier is not able to prove that the parcel was actually delivered into the customer's hands [M. X] as indicated on the air waybill, it follows from article 18 § 4 that the damage is presumed to have been the result of an event which took place during the carriage by air.
Furthermore, contrarily to article 19 requirements, the carrier does not prove to have taken every measure that could reasonably be required to avoid the damages. The carrier does not prove either that it was impossible for them to take such measures. The mere fact that the nature of the shipment has not been written on the package does not exclude the possibility to take the necessary measures. the carrier is thus liable for the damage occasioned by the delay.
Provided that no special declaration of interest has been made, and that no misconduct with intent to cause damage has been proven, it follows from article 22.3 that the amount owed corresponds to the weight of the document parcel (0,5 kg) multiplied by 19 SDR/kg, up to a total of 9,5 DTS.
Furthermore, contrarily to article 19 requirements, the carrier does not prove to have taken every measure that could reasonably be required to avoid the damages. The carrier does not prove either that it was impossible for them to take such measures. The mere fact that the nature of the shipment has not been written on the package does not exclude the possibility to take the necessary measures. the carrier is thus liable for the damage occasioned by the delay.
Provided that no special declaration of interest has been made, and that no misconduct with intent to cause damage has been proven, it follows from article 22.3 that the amount owed corresponds to the weight of the document parcel (0,5 kg) multiplied by 19 SDR/kg, up to a total of 9,5 DTS.
Interprétation
The court infers from article 18 § 4 that as long as the delivery, supposed to be carried out "into the hands of the person entitled to delivery" has not been proved, the carrier is liable for any loss caused by a delay, even if the delay occured with certainty outside of the airport.
It is furthermore noteworthy that in order to calculate the amount of compensation, the court does not take into account the cargo stuck at the port of Casablanca, but only the weight of the documents that were to be delivered to Lyon.
It is furthermore noteworthy that in order to calculate the amount of compensation, the court does not take into account the cargo stuck at the port of Casablanca, but only the weight of the documents that were to be delivered to Lyon.
Mot clés
Transport by land subsequently to air transport
combined carriage
delay of the cargo
combined carriage
delay of the cargo