A Greek producer and seller of food products sold 1,296 boxes of frozen spinach pies to a California-based supermarket chain for EUR 54,120.96. The goods were to be transported from the seller's warehouse in Eleysina, Attica, to the port of Piraeus, then loaded onto the container ship MA for sea carriage to Long Beach, California, and finally delivered to the buyer's California warehouse. The sales agreement provided for passing of risk at the ship's rail.

A foreign freight forwarder arranged the transport. The freight forwarder assigned the international carriage by sea to the third defendant, the owner of the MA, who had suitable reefer containers. The third defendant’s general shipping agent in Greece was the second defendant. The inland road transportation leg was assigned to the first defendant, as suggested by the second defendant. The first defendant booked space on the third defendant's vessel and leased a 40-TEU container owned and operated by the third defendant and managed by the second defendant. The first defendant would then carry the container by road to Eleysina for stuffing, and from there to Piraeus.

On 21 August 2019, the reefer container was put into operation, with a temperature reading of -18^o C in accordance with the instructions of the first defendant to the second defendant, and without any problem in its operation. However, the seller's personnel stuffed the reefer container without checking the temperature of the container or waiting until it reached the desired temperature. The second defendant received electronic information about temperature deviations of the container and thus it was not loaded on board the vessel the next day. On inspection, signs of thawing were found in the products, while no damage to the refrigeration mechanism was found.

The seller destroyed the products as unsuitable and initiated legal proceedings against the defendants, seeking EUR 59,906.20. The One Member Court of First Instance of Piraeus dismissed the legal proceedings: a) against the second and third defendants as inadmissible on the basis of absence of jurisdiction; and b) against the first defendant and its employees as lacking a legal basis.

The seller appealed.

Held: Appeal dismissed regarding the first defendant and its employees. Appeal upheld regarding the second and third defendants. Decision 1664/2021 of the One Member Court of First Instance of Piraeus is set aside in that respect. The Court then heard the case on the merits and dismissed it.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the decision in the light of national law, the Hague-Visby Rules, and the CMR Convention and concluded the following.

The objection of the second and third defendants regarding the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Greek courts and the exclusive jurisdiction of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York lacks substantial merit. The relevant bill of lading does not bear the signatures of the two parties. In any event, the terms of that bill of lading (allegedly issued by the third defendant, acting through the second defendant as its representative and shipping agent in Piraeus) are not applicable. This is because the damage occurred at the land stage of transport, which was not covered by the maritime bill of lading.

Therefore, the Court of First Instance, which accepted the above objection as well-founded in substance and subsequently dismissed the action as regards the above defendants as inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction, misinterpreted and misapplied the law. Accordingly, the Court should hear the action as to its merits.

The Hague-Visby Rules, which regulate the liability of the (maritime) carrier from the loading of the ship to its discharge, apply to pure (single-mode) international maritime carriage of cargo. In the case of combined (complex) international carriage, however, which is carried out by more than one means of transport of different types, but under a single contract (and usually under a single bill of lading) covering the entire carriage, from receipt to delivery of the goods to the consignee, with unloading and transhipment of the goods, the carrier's liability is not regulated uniformly, but is determined on the basis of the legal regime governing each leg of the carriage in which the damage occurred. Thus, if the damage occurred during the maritime leg of the transport, the Hague-Visby Rules would apply, while if it occurred during the land leg, the provisions of the CMR Convention would apply. However, if the damage occurred during a purely domestic transport leg by road, the provisions of the CMR Convention will not apply, but rather Greek domestic law. Otherwise, the rights and obligations of the parties to the combined transport contract are generally governed by the agreements of the parties and, in the absence of such agreements, by the provisions of the common law, especially those that are appropriate to the legal nature of the contract.

There was no evidence of malfunction of the refrigeration mechanism of the reefer container cooler that would have caused an activation of an alarm. Moreover, the failure to reach the desired temperature due to lack of proper pre-cooling prior to the start of loading was insufficient for an alarm. Therefore, the seller's claim that the damage was due to the unsatisfactory operation of the reefer system is not convincing. This completely downplays the fact that the claimant's staff responsible for loading attempted to densely stuff the perishable and highly water-sensitive goods before the refrigerated compartment of the reefer had been properly frozen, despite the high seasonal temperature and the unstable loading conditions created in the above circumstances. It is not established that the damage to the seller's goods was the result of any wrongful conduct of the third defendant as owner/operator of the reefer container. Therefore, the latter is not liable for that damage.