Carsogal SL (the plaintiff) claimed for damage to a cargo of potatoes carried under multimodal transport from Xinzo de Limia, Spain, to Lisbon, Portugal, and from there by sea to Constanta, Romania. Vasco Gallega de Consignaciones SA (the defendant) was the freight forwarder contracted for the transport. The cargo was loaded onto the MV Nuova Adria in Lisbon. It was discharged at the port of Gioia Tauro, Italy, and transhipped onto the MV Medhope for final carriage to Constanta. The whole maritime section of the transport took 30 days.

The first instance Court declared that the claim was time-barred and both parties appealed the decision. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was the carrier even if it did not personally perform the carriage, but contracted actual carriers for that purpose. It also held that the damage occurred during the maritime section of the transport which made the Hague Rules applicable. The damage did not occur while the cargo was at an Italian port for transhipment, as the plaintiff alleged. The damage occurred because of the excessive duration of the maritime section, due to transhipment that was not previously agreed and was considered a non-reasonable deviation, according to art 4.4 of the Hague Rules. However, as the claim was not filed within the one-year time limitation established in the Hague Rules, the decision was affirmed. The plaintiff recurred this decision in cassation before the Tribunal Supremo/Supreme Court (SC). It alleged that under Spanish law, there was no specific provision establishing a time-bar period for a claim arising from multimodal transport. Therefore, art 943 of the Code of Commerce (CCom), which orders the application of art 1964 of the Civil Code for actions that do not have an established limitation period, should have been applied.

Held: The SC affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision. It held that the legal regime for the international carriage of goods under bills of lading takes precedence over art 943 of the CCom and the related provisions of the Civil Code. Therefore, it is irrelevant that the CCom does not contain a particular time limit for actions arising from contracts of multimodal transport. The Court of Appeal correctly applied the time-bar provision contained in the Hague Rules that govern the maritime section of the transport, where the damage occurred. Therefore, the CCom and the Civil Code were not applicable, but rather the limitation period established in art 3.6 of the Hague Rules.