A written claim suspends the limitation period — but only the first one

A limitation period is not simply a matter of waiting. It can be suspended, and that is one of the most useful provisions in the Convention.

How it works

Article 32(2) of the CMR Convention: a written claim suspends the running of the limitation period until the day the carrier rejects it in writing and returns the documents attached to it.

If part of the claim is admitted, the period starts running again only for the part still in dispute.

The practical effect is considerable: even if the dispute drags on for a year, the period is not running in the meantime.

Three conditions that are easy to miss

The claim must be in writing. A phone call or an oral understanding does not suspend the running of the period.

The suspension ends only with a written rejection accompanied by the return of the documents. If the carrier rejects it orally or does not return the documents, the suspension formally continues — but that creates an uncertainty you will have to prove.

The burden of proof lies with the party relying on the suspension. You have to prove receipt of the claim, the reply, and the return of the documents. Which means the method of sending has to leave a trace.

The most important limitation

Only the first claim suspends the period. Later claims on the same grounds no longer stop it running.

That means persistent repetition does not help. Once the first claim has been rejected, the clock is running again, and a second identical claim will not stop it.

The practical conclusion: the first claim has to be prepared properly. It is not only a demand — it is the only mechanism available for stopping the clock.

What to keep

A dated copy of the claim. Proof of sending. The carrier's reply. And evidence that the documents were returned, or were not.

None of it is needed today, but on the day the period itself comes into question — usually a year later or more.

And one more detail

The extension of the limitation period and the renewal of the right are governed by the law of the court seised of the case.

That produces unevenness. In Italy, acts of interruption provided for by national law allow claims to be brought even after a year has passed. In other states the application is stricter.

So the effective period depends not only on the Convention but also on where the dispute would be heard.