Two cargo units loaded onto the Bucintoro were lost during carriage from Trieste, Italy, to Izmir, Turkey. They were insured by Soc d’Assicurazione Allami Biztosito Nemzeti Vallalat (SAABNV). The shipowner, Soc di Navigazione Salvagno (SNS), appealed in cassation, claiming that the Court of Appeal should have declared that SAANBV was not entitled to bring a claim, as it did not produce evidence of its payment to the insured. SNS also emphasised that the claim should have been addressed to Enrico Sperco & Figli (ESF) as it signed the bill of lading, and highlighted that there iwas no necessary coincidence between the navigation company (shipowner) and the carrier. Moreover, in SNS’s view, the Court of Appeal did not consider the charterparty between SNS and ESF, in terms of which ESF was the charterer, acting as the carrier. Finally, SNS argued that the six-month time bar provided by the Italian Code of Navigation applied to the case and not that of one year under art 3.6 of the Hague Rules, as the bill of lading was issued in Italy and the ship was flying the Italian flag. The cargo’s destination in a foreign port should not exclude the applicability of the Code of Navigation. SNS also stressed that art 3.6 of the Hague Rules refers to total loss of cargo, and not to damage or partial loss.

Held: The appeal in cassation is dismissed.

The Court recalled the decision of the Court of Appeal, stating that SAABNV was entitled to sue SNS as it was the holder of the bill of lading. Thus its standing to sue was not based on the contract of insurance but on the contract of carriage. The Court also stressed that the functions of the bill of lading are evidence of the contract of carriage and the symbol of the cargo. Moreover, the holder of the bill of lading is entitled to receive the shipment or, absent the delivery of the cargo, to receive compensation.

The Court agreed with the decision of the Court of Appeal which identified SNS as the carrier. ESF signed the bill of lading as an agent and on behalf of the master, and the master accepted the bill of lading without reservations. The Court of Appeal correctly decided that the master issued the bill of lading on behalf of the shipowner, which resulted in SNS being the carrier.

As to the charterparty agreement between SNS and ESF, the Court noted that there was no evidence of this agreement in the bill of lading. The Court also recalled the principle of the legitimate trust of third parties and that the role of the carrier is to be found from the elements in the bill of lading.

In conclusion, the Court recalled the jurisprudence stating that the Code of Navigation did not abrogate the Hague Rules. The two laws have different scopes, as the Hague Rules apply for bills of lading in international maritime transport, and the norms of the Code of Navigation refer to all ocean carriers and, when bills of lading are concerned, to national transportation. The Court also noted that the abrogation of the Hague Rules would have implied that Italy would only have fulfilled its international commitment with Italy's declaration under art 15 of the Hague Rules. The legislator should have expressed the will to abrogate the Hague Rules through the Code. The Court argued that the foreign port is relevant to consider as the case involves international maritime transport, even if the port is in a non-contracting State, such as Turkey. Moreover, in this case, there is a foreign consignee. If the nationality of the port and the consignee were ignored, the Hague Rules’ aim to ensure uniformity of rules in international maritime transport would not be fulfilled. The Court highlighted that the Hungarian company Masped also participated in the transportation as a shipper. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal correctly applied art 10 of the Hague Rules. The Court finally noted that art 3 of the Hague Rules applies to damage and partial cargo loss.