This was an appeal regarding a claim brought by Sociedade Unipessoal Lda (the plaintiff) against V SA (the defendant). The defendant freight forwarder had undertaken the organisation and transportation of two containers of frozen horse mackerel from Setúbal, Portugal, to Nacala, Mozambique, for EUR 9,269.20, at a controlled temperature of -21º C.

On 5 February 2021, the defendant informed the plaintiff that when moving the containers at Valencia, it was found that the refrigeration equipment had been disconnected from the power supply. The goods had begun to decompose and were destroyed.

The Lisbon Maritime Court held that the plaintiff's claim was extinguished by prescription. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The judgment of the Porto Court of Appeal of 10 December 2001 (Case No 0151125 - Fonseca Ramos) referred to the fact that in the

Portuguese legal system on the contract for the carriage of goods by sea, the 'International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules in Matters of Bill of Lading' is in force, signed in Brussels on 25 August 1924, published in the Government Gazette, I Series, of 2 June 1932, and rectified on 11 July 1932, made domestic law by DL 37,748, of 1 February 1950 - 'Brussels Convention' - and DL 352/86, of 31 October. …

As is well known, by our constitutional rule, the law of international Conventions received into the domestic order prevails over domestic law.

However, it is important to note that the aforementioned DL, after defining the contract for the carriage of goods by sea in art 1, establishes in art 2.2 that this contract 'is governed by the international treaties and Conventions in force in Portugal and, subsidiarily, by the provisions of this bill of lading'.

From the outset, as could not be otherwise, the DL affirms the primacy of the treaties and Conventions in force in Portugal, relegating to itself a subsidiary field of application, applying where such treaties or Conventions are inapplicable.

The period in art 16 of DL No 255/99 of 7 July is a special period, and effectively excludes the applicability of art 309 of the Civil Code.

The plaintiff had a short limitation period to exercise its rights, because that is the legal intention. That is what the speed of commercial relations and the security of legal trade in this area require and impose. The plaintiff did not exercise its rights for over 2 years. The plaintiff's inertia meant that it let time pass, giving rise to a limitation period that, once invoked, cannot fail to be assessed.

A similar decision was made in the recent ruling of the RP of 23.01.2025, Proc No 4421/22.0T8PRT.P1 (Isabel Peixoto Pereira) (CMI2603), the summary of which contains the following:

I - Even when the defendant, being a freight forwarder, is liable to its client for obligations entered into by third parties with whom it has contracted, under the terms of art 15 of DL 255/99, the provisions of the following regulation are already applicable, which stipulates the prescription of such obligation within a period of 10 months from the completion of the provision of the service, and there is no legal or even logical basis for extending the prescriptive period to the period of expiry of rights against the carrier.

II - Thus, by establishing for the freight forwarder a liability regime that leads it to respond as the carrier would, whatever the subject of the contract that it entered into with the shipper, the law sought to obviate the difficulties that arise when determining which obligation was assumed by the freight forwarder, whether that of a mandate, acting as a freight forwarder-commissioner, or that of a true carrier, acting as a freight forwarder-carrier; and, thus, the protection granted to the shipper ended up being reinforced in the face of the tangle of stakeholders involved in the reality of transport.

III - This aspect of the freight forwarder's liability explains the establishment of an uncharacteristic (because – as far as we know – it has no parallel) and short (less than 1 year) prescriptive period by art 16 of DL no 255/99.

IV - The reduced extension of the prescriptive period is intended to compensate for the onerous nature of the establishment of a liability del credere that was not agreed between the parties, but rather imposed by law.

V - Furthermore, only an extension of less than 1 year allows the freight forwarder to assert its right of recourse against the actual carrier, since, if the interested party in the cargo exercises its right to compensation close to the end of the period set out in art 16 of DL No 255/99, the freight forwarder will still have 2 months to safeguard its claim for compensation.

VI - Assuming the interruption of the limitation period is the existence of an act that, directly or indirectly, at least gives the debtor knowledge of the creditor's intention to exercise its claim, ... the provisions of art 323.3 of the Civil Code are inapplicable ... .