This was an appeal regarding limitation of actions in a carriage claim. The respondent argued that the lapse of time from the delivery of the cargo on 11 July 2007 until when the actions were brought (1 March 2010 in respect of the first action and 17 May 2010 in respect of the second action) meant that they were time-barred under the Hague-Visby Rules. The appellant argued that the limitation period had been interrupted by its earlier action, dated 4 July 2008, which was withdrawn for the purpose of correcting the parties, which the appellant argued did not constitute a total and solemn abandonment of the action. When the matter was heard by the Multi-Member Court of First Instance of Piraeus, the Court noted that the parties had expressly agreed to English substantive law as the governing law (while the appellant considered Greek substantive law applicable). The Court required the parties to provide a legal opinion by the Hellenic Institute of International and Foreign Issues on the relevant conflict of laws issues. Subsequently, the Court decided in favour of the respondent, accepting that the appellant's claim had expired due to the limitation period.

The appellant appealed.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

By Law 2107/1992 Greece ratified the Hague Rules 1924 and the amending Protocols of 1968 and 1979 (The Hague-Visby Rules with SDR Protocol). From a combination of the provisions of art 2 of the above Law and arts 1.b, 2, 3.1, 5, 10.2 and 10.3 of the aforementioned Convention, it follows that this Convention has application in Greece from 23 June 1993 to any sea freight contract in which the ports of loading and unloading are located in different countries, provided that this transport is covered by a bill of lading or other similar document (AP 376/2008) (CMI2414). With reference to this transport, the Law extends the application of the above Rules to the category of international maritime transport, the foreign nature of which is based on the objective criterion that the ports of loading and unloading are located in different countries. This regulation is a rule of substantive private international law, ie a rule that directly determines the law applicable in relations of private international law. Therefore, the law applicable to international maritime transport by consignment is the Hague-Visby Rules, which are applied either through the national legislation in which they have been incorporated (see AP 884/2005) or directly, if there is an express reference to the Rules in the bill of lading or document evidencing the contract of carriage. Moreover, according to art 3 of the Rome Convention 1980, which applies to this agreement, contractual obligations are governed by the law that the parties chose. Therefore, where the maritime transport has elements of trans-European character, it is necessary to resort to the above provision to find the applicable law governing matters not regulated by the Hague-Visby Rules, supplemented with provisions of national legislation (see AP 1092/2014). So, for example, the Hague-Visby rules do not contain provisions for parties who ship goods under charterparties (AP 928/2011, AP 89/2005).

Furthermore, from the combination of arts 3.1, 4.1, 4.5.b and 5 of the Hague-Visby Rules, it follows that the carrier is responsible for the loss or damage of the goods at the time of transport, and that in case of loss or damage during sea transport any person who has an interest in the cargo, ie the party who suffers from the cargo's loss or damage, is entitled to take action against the maritime carrier and claim compensation, the amount of which will be calculated on the basis of the commodity exchange price, or, if there is no such price, according to the current market price, or if there is no such price, the current or normal value of the goods at the place and time they are unloaded from the ship or which should have been unloaded, according to the contract of carriage (AP 343/2019, AP 928/2011).

Moreover, art 3.6 of the Convention, as amended by art 1 of the Protocol of 1968, stipulates that the carrier and ship shall 'in any event be discharged from all liability whatsoever in respect of the goods, unless suit is brought within one year of their delivery or of the date when they should have been delivered'. This article establishes a short-term annual limitation period for the receiver's right to compensation for lost or damaged cargo. This limitation period starts running from the receipt or delivery of the goods or from the date on which they should have been delivered and applies mutatis mutandis, both to the contractual and non-contractual liability of the carrier, not only for the loss or damage of goods but also for other claims of the interested party regarding the cargo (AP 1092/2014, AP 1657/2008, AP 381/2008).

This Convention, however, does not further define anything regarding the interruption or suspension of the limitation period. Therefore, these cases are regulated by the applicable law and, if this is Greek law, there is a possibility of interruption of the limitation period. In this case, the Court of First Instance correctly ruled that the parties chose English law as the applicable law. It follows that the appellant's first plea is unfounded.

The Court then considered the legal opinion of the Hellenic Institute of International and Foreign Law on English law, which concluded that the situation created by art 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules differs from the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980 (UK), which merely impedes the relevant claim but does not extinguish it, because the beneficiary can obtain its satisfaction if it has other means of satisfaction at its disposal. Based on this reasoning, the House of Lords ruled in Aries Tanker Corporation v Total Transport Ltd (The Aries) [1977] 1 Lloyd's Rep 334 (CMI2194), that the result of art 3.6 of the Rules 'is not only that it puts an obstacle in the exercise of the legal aid, but also that it extinguishes the right'.

The Court below, after judging the manner, time and validity of the waiver of the lawsuit, but also its retrial, in accordance with the provisions of the domestic Code of Civil Procedure (lex fori), correctly applied the above substantive provisions of English law to rule on the basis of the substantive consequences of the above actions and, in particular, whether those procedural acts met the conditions for interruption of the limitation period in art 3.6 of the Convention.