Establecimiento Colonia SA claimed against Mediterranean Shipping Co Uruguay SA (MSC) for the loss of cargo carried in a container on board the MV MSC Nuria from Montevideo, Uruguay, to Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. The plaintiff alleged that the container arrived at its destination and was not allowed to leave the port premises by the Spanish sanitary authorities for the lack of a Uruguay sanitary seal. The plaintiff affirmed that the container was delivered to the carrier at the origin with that seal. The cargo remained for over two months at the port of Las Palmas, which meant that it was unfit for human consumption. The Spanish law applied to the claim as the law of the place of delivery.

MSC alleged that the container was discharged with the sanitary seal and that the damage resulted from the acts of the plaintiff or of the consignee. The container was left at the port until 28 November 2008, when another consignee claimed it and discovered the absence of the sanitary seal. The carrier argued that its responsibility ended with the discharge of the container at the port on 19 September 2008. According to the Spanish law on carriage of goods by sea (LCGS) of 22 December 1949, which provides for the application of the Hague Rules, the carrier's liability comprises the period from the uploading of the cargo until its delivery at the destination. The defendant also claimed the time bar established in art 22 of the LCGS (art 3.6 of the Hague Rules), as the lawsuit was not filed within one year. As this period is a time lapse (caducidad), the regular means of interrupting the prescription did not apply.

Held: The Court admitted the time-bar defence and dismissed the claim. The Court agreed that it was a time-lapse period (caducidad), as the Spanish case law and the authors have established. According to the rule, the period starts running from the moment the cargo is delivered. In this claim, there could be three possible dates: the first, 19 September 2008, when the ship arrived at the port of destination and the container was discharged; the second, 28 November 2008, when the new consignee started the procedure for removing the container; or the third, 19 February 2009, when the container was inspected. Counting from any of these dates, the time limitation was elapsed as the lawsuit was filed on 13 September 2010, which falls outside the one-year period. Both the time bar (prescripción) and time lapse (caducidad) refer to the extinction of a right because of the passing of time. The difference is that the former allows interruption while the latter does not, and if it is not exercised within the established time, the opportunity is lost.