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

On the bias of judges in civil proceedings: If judges do not read a party’s pleadings, this can justify a motion for recusal!
Following on from my overview article on the application for recusal pursuant to Section 42 ZPO, I would like to report on an interesting ruling by the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe. According to this ruling, a judge’s failure to read the pleadings submitted by a party can give rise to concerns of bias. In the case in question, a judge had overlooked an application for recusal directed against him, as he had forwarded the pleading containing it unread to the opposing party for comment. This violates the so-called duty to wait pursuant to Section 47 (1) ZPO, according to which only “official acts that cannot be postponed” are permitted from the filing of an application for recusal until it has been dealt with.

BGH on the legal consequences of thwarting evidence
In legal disputes, it often happens that one party makes it difficult for the opposing party to provide evidence. In these cases, the question then arises as to whether and, if so, with what legal consequences it can be assumed that evidence has been obstructed.

Guide to procedural law: Easier way to claim damages for exhaust gas manipulation – On the BGH ruling of June 26, 2023 (Ref. Via ZR 335/21)
This article attempts to classify and evaluate the current ruling of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) of June 26, 2023 (Ref. Via ZR 335/21) on the subject of compensation for damages due to emissions manipulation by car manufacturers.
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

