This was an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Versailles Court of Appeal, 23 September 2014. DHL Global Forwarding France (DHL), a freight forwarder, was entrusted by Guerlain with organising the delivery of goods from Belleville-le-Comte (France) to Miami (United States). Danmar Lines, the issuer of the bill of lading for end-to-end carriage on behalf of DHL, and the party named as shipper in he bill of lading, entrusted the maritime carriage of the container to CMA CGM. On delivery in Miami on 24 September 2008, the container was found to be half empty. On 23 September 2009, Danmar Lines sued CMA CGM in the Miami court which, by judgment of 15 June 2010, upheld the objection of incompetence raised by CMA CGM, based on a choice of jurisdiction clause in the bill of lading in favour of the Marseille Commercial Court. DHL and Danmar Lines brought an action for indemnity against CMA CGM on 28 May 2010. CMA CGM invoked the prescription of the recourse action on the basis of art 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules.

The Court of Appeal accepted this plea of ​​inadmissibility and declared DHL and Danmar Lines' claims against CMA CGM time-barred. DHL and Danmar Lines appealed.

DHL and Danmar Lines argued that bringing a recourse action within three months following the commencement of the action against the indemnified party is admissible, even if at this time the limitation period of one year after delivery had expired, provided that the main action serving as the basis for the recourse action was brought within the limitation period, possibly extended by agreement, this extension being enforceable against the indemnifying carrier. By holding that, because of the cumulative nature of the two limitation periods, and because the main action was brought more than one year after delivery, the recourse action of the forwarder against the carrier was prescribed, and that the extensions of limitation granted by the forwarder to Guerlain and its subrogated insurers within the time limit for the main action were unenforceable against the indemnifying carrier, the Court of Appeal violated art 3.6 bis of the Hague-Visby Rules, art 5422-18 of the Transport Code, and arts 1165 and 2254 of the Civil Code.

They further contended that their recourse action against the carrier was brought within the period of three months that was allotted to them, as they had not settled their claims with Guerlain or its subrogated insurers, and were not assigned in the right to sue the carrier until 12 May 2010. A legal action interrupts the limitation period even when it is brought before an incompetent forum, regardless of whether it was brought on the last day of the limitation period, and that this suit was not brought opportunistically or in bad faith.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Suspension by agreement of the limitation period granted by the freight forwarder to its principal has effect only between those parties and is only enforceable on third parties if the latter have consented to its extension. Having noted that the recourse action brought by DHL against CMA CGM was commenced after a year following delivery, the Court of Appeal correctly deduced that the action brought was time-barred. A legal action has an interrupting effect of prescription only for the benefit of the person from whom it emanates. The judgment correctly held that Danmar Lines was not representing DHL in the US proceedings. The action that Danmar Lines brought in the US on 23 September 2009 had no interrupting effect of limitation in favour of DHL, a different company. This action also had no interrupting effect for the benefit of Danmar Lines, since the insurers' claim of 3 March 2009 was directed only against DHL to whom the organisation of the transport had been entrusted by Guerlain. Danmar Lines thus had no current interest to initiate this action.