The article focuses on the comparative-contrastive analysis between the provisions of art. 1700 of the Italian Civil Code, entitled “Trasporto cumulativo”, and the ones laid down by the Chapter VI of the Convention relative au contrat de transport international de marchandises par route (known as C.M.R., signed in Geneva on 19th May 1956), entitled “Dispositions relatives au transport effectué par transporteurs successifs”. The provisions in analysis have much in common and seem to provide a substantially similar discipline to the factispecies of the successive carriers. Nevertheless, they diverge significantly on an essential point. Lacking an express distinction between the “trasporto cumulativo” performed exclusively through road routes and the one including also non-road routes, art. 1700 is applicable even in cases of successive carriers who operate using different modes of transport other than road. On the contrary, C.M.R. Convention specifies that its Chapter VI governs only the cases in which the successive carriers are all road carriers. If carriage includes also non-road routes, in the absence of a uniform regulation, the question arises on the possible application of national rules on multimodal transport, if any, or of the discipline of the so-called transport “superposé”. The different approach of the two regulatory systems leads significant consequences, especially in terms of the applicable discipline – particularly with regard to the liability of carriers, the interruption of the prescription and the determination of the delay – to cases of successive carriers who use different modes of transport for the execution of a single contract of international carriage.
Il contributo si focalizza sull’analisi comparativo-contrastiva tra la disciplina dettata dall’art. 1700 del codice civile, in materia di trasporto cumulativo, e quella prevista dal Capitolo VI, rubricato “Disposizioni concernenti il trasporto effettuato da vettori successivi” della Convenzione sul contratto di trasporto internazionale stradale di merce (nota con l’acronimo C.M.R., firmata a Ginevra il 19 maggio 1956). Le previsioni normative in esame presentano molti elementi in comune e sembrano fornire una disciplina sostanzialmente analoga della fattispecie del trasporto con vettori successivi. Nonostante ciò, divergono in modo marcato su un punto essenziale. Non potendovi rinvenire alcuna espressa distinzione tra il trasporto cumulativo svolto per tratte esclusivamente stradali e quello comprendente anche tratte non stradali, l’art. 1700 c.c. troverebbe applicazione anche nei casi di vettori successivi che operino mediante modi di trasporto differenti da quello stradale. Al contrario, la C.M.R. precisa che gli articoli 34 e seguenti disciplinano solo le ipotesi in cui le varie tratte del trasporto siano tutte su strada: qualora il trasporto preveda anche tratte non stradali, in assenza di una normativa uniforme, si pone il problema dell’eventuale applicazione delle singole discipline nazionali sul trasporto multimodale, ove presenti, o di quella del cd. “trasporto superposé”. Dalla diversa impostazione dei due corpi normativi discendono rilevanti conseguenze, specialmente sotto il profilo della disciplina applicabile (in particolare in merito alla responsabilità dei vettori, all’interruzione della prescrizione, alla determinazione del ritardo) ai casi di vettori successivi che si avvalgono di diversi modi di trasporto per l’esecuzione di un singolo contratto di trasporto internazionale.
Il trasporto con vettori successivi tra jus positum e jus in fieri
Massimiliano Musi
2016-01-01
Abstract
The article focuses on the comparative-contrastive analysis between the provisions of art. 1700 of the Italian Civil Code, entitled “Trasporto cumulativo”, and the ones laid down by the Chapter VI of the Convention relative au contrat de transport international de marchandises par route (known as C.M.R., signed in Geneva on 19th May 1956), entitled “Dispositions relatives au transport effectué par transporteurs successifs”. The provisions in analysis have much in common and seem to provide a substantially similar discipline to the factispecies of the successive carriers. Nevertheless, they diverge significantly on an essential point. Lacking an express distinction between the “trasporto cumulativo” performed exclusively through road routes and the one including also non-road routes, art. 1700 is applicable even in cases of successive carriers who operate using different modes of transport other than road. On the contrary, C.M.R. Convention specifies that its Chapter VI governs only the cases in which the successive carriers are all road carriers. If carriage includes also non-road routes, in the absence of a uniform regulation, the question arises on the possible application of national rules on multimodal transport, if any, or of the discipline of the so-called transport “superposé”. The different approach of the two regulatory systems leads significant consequences, especially in terms of the applicable discipline – particularly with regard to the liability of carriers, the interruption of the prescription and the determination of the delay – to cases of successive carriers who use different modes of transport for the execution of a single contract of international carriage.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.