Presentation of the Opinion: Art. 2.1 CMR governs certain so-called piggyback transport operations. Piggyback transport refers to the transport of goods where a road vehicle with its cargo is carried on the back of another means of transport. Piggyback transport gives rise to a preliminary question, i.e. whether the consent of the sender is required to allow for such transport. This topic will be addressed below in Issue No. 1.
As follows from the wording of Arts. 1.2. and 2.1. CMR, these provisions apply to single contracts of international carriage of goods which include a road stage and a non-road stage, thus raising issues about the liability regime applicable to the non-road stage. Article 2.1 CMR provides for a complicated system of rules which depends on the interplay of multiple factors.
The purpose of this Opinion is to propose a uniform interpretation of this provision in order to identify the rules governing the carrier’s liability in a piggyback transport scenario, thereby resolving the discrepancies in case law.
This OPINION (black letters) is accompanied by COMMENTS explaining the methodology followed by the CMR-AC and justifying the adopted Opinion.
To be cited as : CMR-AC Opinion N°1 on piggyback transport, 02 July 2026
Black Letters
1. Consent of the sender for the use of piggyback transportation
Use of piggyback transport as a rule requires the sender’s consent.
Whether consent has been given by the sender is not governed by the CMR and shall be assessed in accordance with the applicable domestic law. The sender’s consent may be replaced by trade usage if allowed by the applicable law.
If the carrier performs piggyback transport despite the lack of required sender’s consent, Art. 2.1. second sentence CMR shall not apply.
2. Identification of the non-road regime
The expressions “conditions prescribed by law” in the English version and “dispositions impératives de la loi [mandatory provisions of the law]” in the French version of Article 2.1. CMR both refer to mandatory law. This mandatory law can originate from internationally agreed uniform transport law instruments as well as domestic law.
The liability system established for the mode of transport in question need not be “mandatory” in the sense that it cannot be deviated from in any way.
The CIM, CMNI, Warsaw Convention, Montreal Convention, Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules, and Hamburg Rules are all mandatory law in the sense of Art. 2.1. CMR.
The non-road liability regime for the hypothetical contract between the sender and the non-road carrier should be objectively identified based on its scope of application.
In this objective identification no importance is to be given to:
A) the terms of the actual sub-contract for carriage by the other mode of transport, the transport document (not) issued, or any agreements the parties made.
B) the terms the sender and the non-road carrier would have agreed upon, or the transport document possibly issued (or not).
The non-road regime authorized by Art. 2.1. CMR only applies to the liability of the road carrier (chap. IV CMR) for the piggyback transport stage. For other matters the CMR remains applicable.