LEGAL+ NEWS
The limitation period under transport law pursuant to § 439 HGB is one year from delivery of the transported goods and is therefore significantly shorter than the 3-year standard limitation period pursuant to § 195 BGB.
Due to this significant shortening of the limitation period, the question of the scope of application of the transport law limitation period is of great importance. I can report from experience that the question of whether a claim is subject to the statute of limitations under transport law or the standard statute of limitations often raises difficulties. In this respect, there are two “camps”, one of which takes a narrow interpretation and one – rightly – a broad interpretation.
The following article summarizes the legal situation.
Wording of the law: Claims “arising from transportation”
Pursuant to § 439 para. 1 sentence 1 HGB, claims “arising from transportation” in accordance with the provisions of §§ 407-450 HGB expire within one year of delivery of the goods.
The limitation period under transport law in accordance with 439 HGB covers all claims in connection with transportation
Even though the wording of § 439 HGB regulates the limitation period for claims “arising from transportation”, the preferred view is that it covers all claims that are intrinsically linked to the transportation.
The purpose of the uniform limitation provision is to simplify the limitation provisions and make them clearer. Possible legal uncertainties due to different statutes of limitation for claims arising from a uniform factual situation are to be counteracted (see BT-Drucksache 13/8445 on Section 439 HGB).
This also includes, for example, claims arising from consulting services in connection with the organization of the transport, claims arising from customs clearance and claims for information (see OLG Nuremberg of 26.11.1974, NJW 1974, 501).
In particular, the statute of limitations also applies irrespective of the party asserting the claim and the legal grounds on which it is based. It is therefore irrelevant whether the carrier takes action against the principal or vice versa. (see BT-Drucksache 13/8445 on § 439 HGB).
The limitation period under transport law pursuant to 439 HGB is not merely a limitation or exemption from liability within the meaning of §§ 434, 436 HGB
The opposing view, according to which § 439 HGB should be a limitation or exemption from liability within the meaning of §§ 434, 436 HGB, is incorrect. In particular, this would mean that Section 439 HGB would only apply to claims of the parties to the transportation contract in question. This view cannot be substantiated. The application of § 439 HGB is not only possible via § 434 para. 1 HGB or § 436 HGB:
Justification of the law
As explained above, the purpose of the uniform limitation provision of Section 439 HGB is to simplify the limitation provisions and make them clearer (explanatory memorandum to the government draft of the Transport Law Reform Act, BT-Drs. 13/8445, p. 77). The limitation rule of § 439 HGB is based solely on whether the transportation as such is subject to the provisions of §§ 407 et seq. HGB. This is the only way to ensure that all claims directly related to the transportation run concurrently (see BT-Drs. 13/8445, p. 77).
The reference to § 439 HGB in the explanatory memorandum to § 434 HGB and thus the clarification of the systematic relationships in the transport law regulations of the HGB is unambiguous, so that no serious doubt can arise as to the scope of § 439 HGB. The decisive sentence is quoted as follows:
No separate reference is made to the scope of the limitation provision, since the limitation provision itself (Section 439 HGB-E), in accordance with the parallel provision of Article 32 CMR, already covers all claims arising from carriage, including non-contractual claims.”.
BGH case law
Nothing to the contrary is stated in the absolutely clear case law of the BGH, which stated (judgment of January 10, 2008, ref. I ZR 13/05, para. 13):
“The provision of Section 439 (I) HGB links the application of the independent limitation period under freight law solely to the fact that the asserted claim arises from transportation subject to the provisions of this subsection. If such transportation is to be assumed because an effective contract of carriage within the meaning of § 407 HGB, all claims that are directly related to this transportation are subject to the statute of limitations of § 439 HGB, irrespective of the party asserting them and the legal grounds on which they are based (cf. (cf. explanatory memorandum to the draft bill of the Transport Law Reform Act, BT-Dr 13/8445, p. 77; BGH, NJOZ 2006, 1068).”.
Conclusion: Section 439 HGB covers the entire “facts” in connection with transportation
The limitation period under transport law is not (solely) linked to a transport contract and the claims resulting from it.
Rather, the short limitation period of Section 439 HGB covers any claim in connection with transportation. In particular, the short limitation period therefore also applies outside the contract of carriage concerned, insofar as the claim in question has an “internal”, e.g. economic, connection with the carriage.
LATEST ARTICLES

Up to €10,000 before the local court: why it goes wrong
Up to €10,000 in the local court – a mistake with an announcement. The planned reform of the amount in dispute will shift masses of proceedings from the regional courts to the local courts. Sounds like a relief – but will have the opposite effect.

Contract law: Stuttgart 21 and the speech clause – a lesson in clear contract drafting
Sometimes a single sentence decides billions. This is exactly what happened with the Stuttgart 21 project. At the center of the legal dispute was a short contractual provision – the so-called “speech clause”.

Breach of an international jurisdiction agreement can result in liability for damages! – On the ruling of the BGH from 17.10.2019 (Ref. III ZR 42/19)
International agreements on jurisdiction, especially if they are to have exclusive validity, generally have the purpose of protecting the party benefiting from the agreement from the often very considerable costs of a legal dispute in a foreign country.
Unfortunately, however, it is not uncommon for the other contracting party to suddenly no longer want to know about the jurisdiction agreement in the event of a dispute. The background to such a dishonest approach is – obviously – not least the potential for blackmail associated with such an approach. This is because the party that finds itself – in breach of the jurisdiction agreement – exposed to a foreign lawsuit is regularly forced to take action abroad through lawyers in order to avoid legal disadvantages. This in turn is often very expensive, with the USA being the most prominent example.
CONTACT
+49 (40) 57199 74 80
+49 (170) 1203 74 0
Neuer Wall 61 D-20354 Hamburg
kontakt@legal-plus.eu
Benefit from my active network!
I look forward to our networking.
This post is also available in: DE

