This was an appeal in cassation from the judgment of the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal, 23 June 2016. A refrigerated container containing boxes of frozen crabs was loaded on the CMA CGM Cristina to be transported by CMA CGM from Toamasina (Madagascar) to Livorno (Italy) under a bill of lading issued in Toamasina specifying that the goods must be carried at a temperature equal to -22° C and naming Gelpêche as the 'notify party'. On 29 December 2009, the Italian authorities refused to admit the goods into the European Union. During an inspection at the port of Livorno, they were deemed unfit for consumption due to a break in the cold chain, and were ordered to be destroyed. Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty was subrogated into the rights of Gelpêche for having compensated it, and sued CMA CGM for reimbursement of the compensation paid, while Gelpêche claimed the costs of the destruction of the goods that remained at its expense.

The Court of Appeal held that the refusal of admission of the goods into the territory of the European Union by Italian health authorities could not replace an expert report and/or a report from a damage auditor, and that the claimants had therefore not established that CMA CGM was fully liable. The claimants appealed.

Held: Partial cassation.

The Court of Appeal found that the damage resulted from a break in the cold chain noted during a health check carried out at the port of arrival, which justified a refusal of admission on the territory of the European Union. As a result of this, the goods, which could not be delivered to the person entitled to them under the terms of the contract of carriage, could not be presumed to have been delivered in a state conforming to that described in the bill of lading. It was therefore up to the maritime carrier to establish that the break in the cold chain had not occurred during transport or during unloading. By ruling to the contrary, the Court of Appeal violated arts 3.6 and 4.1 of the Hague Rules.

The judgment rendered on 23 June 2016 between the parties by the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal is struck down and annulled, except in that it declares that Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty subrogated into the rights of Gelpêche, and Gelpêche, have standing to bring their claims. Consequently, on the other points, the case and the parties are returned to the state where they were before the aforementioned judgment and the case is remitted to the Montpellier Court of Appeal to be decided correctly.