This was an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Versailles Court of Appeal, 15 May 1996. Alcatel les Câbles de Lyon (Alcatel), insured with Groupe Concorde (the insurer), entrusted to LEP International France (LEP), in its capacity as freight forwarder, the task of organising the carriage of reels of electric cables from Lyon (France) to Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates). LEP chose Maritime Transport Enterprises, now named Ahlron MTE NV (the maritime carrier), to undertake the maritime carriage. LEP concluded the contract of carriage with the maritime carrier. The goods were loaded at the port of Antwerp (Belgium) on the Pioneer under a bill of lading naming Alcatel as the shipper. On arrival in June 1991, after damage was discovered, Alcatel was indemnified by its insurer, which was subrogated into its rights. Alcatel and its insurer then brought proceedings against LEP on 12 May 1992. LEP called on the carrier to indemnify it on 7 August 1992. The Court of Appeal rejected Alcatel and its insurer's claims. Alcatel and its insurer appealed.

Held: Cassation.

The relevant provisions are art 3.6 bis of the Hague-Visby Rules, art 32.2 of the Law of 18 June 1966, and art 99 of the Commercial Code. Following loss or damage resulting from maritime transport, freight forwarders are assigned by their principals, on the basis of the last of these provisions, as guarantors on account of the maritime carriers for which they are responsible. As the substitute carrier, the freight forwarder has standing to act in liability against the maritime carrier, by way of an indemnity claim, even if the principal appears as the shipper in the bill of lading. It is the freight forwarder who, as the real shipper having concluded the maritime transport contract, and because of the guarantee that it assumes, bears liability for the damage towards his customer.

It appears from the two other provisions that the freight forwarder may bring a recourse action against the maritime carrier. The Court of Appeal stated correctly that LEP was a guarantor towards its principal Alcatel because of its substitution as the carrier, by application of the provisions of art 99 of the Commercial Code. Nevertheless, it held that, because LEP was not named as the shipper on the bill of lading following the instructions given to it by its client for the purposes of the documentary credit, LEP did not have standing to act against the maritime carrier, and the principal had not itself acted before the limitation period, as it should have done, in its capacity as shipper, against the maritime carrier. This finding deprived LEP, as the freight forwarding agent, of any effective subrogatory recourse against the maritime carrier.

By ruling thus, whereas the agent LEP was entitled to exercise a recourse in indemnity against the maritime carrier, which it had moreover done within the required time, the Court of Appeal violated the aforementioned provisions. For these reasons the judgment under appeal is struck down and annulled in its entirety, the case and parties are returned to the position they were in before the aforementioned judgment, and the case is referred to the Rouen Court of Appeal to be decided correctly.