A company trading in olive oil and olives endorsed to the National Bank of Greece, as its pledging lender, ten full sets of bills of lading for a combined international transportation of olive oil to the buyer, Alfa Joint. The bills of lading covered both a sea leg and a road transport leg.

The claimant alleged that the bank closed its bank account and, although the amount of the bills of lading exceeded the amount outstanding from the bank account closure, the bank failed to transfer the rights from the bills of lading to the buyer because it was not paid for the oil. The claimant also alleged that the bank did not agree to give the bills of lading to it in order to proceed with legal actions and interrupt the one-year limitation period against the carrier, nor did the bank take any legal actions. As a result, the oil was spoiled and rendered useless.

The Court of First Instance rejected the claimant's legal action as vague. The Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant's appeal. The claimant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held: The appeal is dismissed.

The Supreme Court reviewed the Court of Appeal decision in the light of arts 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10 of the Hague-Visby Rules and concluded the following:

From the above provisions combined with arts 125 and 168-173 of the PMLC, it follows that the Hague-Visby Rules are mandatory in nature and apply exclusively to chartering, which constitutes contracts for the carriage of goods by sea that are covered by a bill of lading or similar document. The issuance of a bill of lading creates rights and constitutes the only evidence of the receipt of the goods. In the case of a contract for the carriage of goods by sea, it proves the contract of carriage, while the 'embodied' right depends on the condition of the bill of lading document, the possession of which is necessary for its exercise.

The economic link between a contract of sale and a contract of carriage is particularly close, and the contract of carriage becomes ancillary to the sale agreement, which is usually followed by a bank contract for the collection of the price or the opening of a letter of credit by means of a pledge of the bill of lading. The content of the bill of lading not only concerns the relations between the shipowner/issuer of the bill of lading and the carrier and the charterer, but also the relations between the former and the holder of the document, who is the consignee of the cargo and, therefore serves to ensure the security of transactions. The identification of the shipowner, the charterer, the consignee, the vessel, and the master is done by entering their name or title on the bill of lading, which is returned to the issuer after delivery of the goods to the consignee.

According to art 32.1 of the Law 559/1977, which ratified the CMR Convention 1956 and its Signing Protocol, the limitation period for claims for actions arising from carriage under this Convention is one year and three years in the case of wilful mismanagement. The CMR Convention is also applicable, pursuant to art 2.1, where the goods are carried for part of the voyage by sea, provided that they are not unloaded from the vehicle carrying them.

Therefore, the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied the law. The first ground of appeal is unfounded. Furthermore, in so far as the appellant's claim for damages is linked to the expiry of the one-year limitation period for its claim against the carrier of the goods and does not constitute an independent historical and legal basis for the legal action, the Court of Appeal did not fail to take into account matters which were put forward and which had a material effect on the outcome of the proceedings, nor did it leave the appellant's application without judgment.