壹、【前言】:
如果一票貨在國際複合運送的海運段(Sea Leg,即運送人在有簽發海運提單的情況下)發生滅失或毀損的情況時,則在決定「陸路運送人」的責任時,究竟應該係適用「國際公路貨物運送公約」(the Convention on
the Contract for International Carriage of Goods by Road, 簡稱CMR),亦還是海牙/海牙威士比規則(the Hague/Hague Visby Rules)? 著實令人納悶與不知所措。
德國聯邦最高法院(the Federal Supreme Court of
Germany)近期在「Und
Adryatik的案件」裡[1],認為當CMR第2條條款訂定的條件成就時,則適用於規範陸路運送人在海運段的責任公約,應該係屬海牙/海牙威士比規則,而非CMR。攸關此一主題,其實之前在英國法規,即有相同的見解可稽(Thermo Engineers
Ltd. and others –vs.- Ferrymaster Ltd. and other)[2]。
貳、【Und
Adryatik案情概述】:
本案運送契約所涵蓋的貨物運送段,係從土耳其運送到英國與西班牙兩地。運送的肇始係由兩部卡車負責將貨物自工廠載運至土耳其的Pendik港,接下來則「連貨帶車」一起上了一艘名為Und Adryatik的滾裝輪(Ro-Ro
Vessel)。然不幸地是,在船舶航行至義大利Trieste港的途中發生不明火警,導致船舶與貨物雙雙毀損滅失。雖然「失火」的原因迄今未明,但調查機構強烈懷疑船舶上所配置的「消防防災系統」(the fire fighting system),在當時並未被有效地執行與運作。
雖然貨物的毀損與滅失係發生在海上運送段,但索賠人主張本案應該適用CMR的責任條款[3]。然卡車公司以為應該適用海牙規則,而其所持的理由則為CMR第2條的例外性規定(而卡車公司之所以主張應該適用海牙規則的最主要原因,乃「失火」(Fire)為海牙規則所列舉的運送人免責事由之一)。
CMR第2條的規定[4],簡言之即:將貨物留置在卡車上的「連貨帶車」運送模式,譬如說整車進、整車出的海上滾裝渡輪(Ro-Ro Sea Crossing),若發生責任議題時,則一般而言仍舊應該適用CMR的規定。雖然如此,然而在CMR第2條條款中,亦有例外規定:假設貨物的毀損與滅失,並非係由陸上運送人所造成的,而係由其他運輸模式(且僅能由該模式)所造成的話,則CMR被排除適用在外,而適用「法律」所訂定的其他規定。祇是必須注意的是:如果並沒有所謂「其他法律所訂定的規範」時,則CMR仍應該被回歸適用。
參、【德國聯邦最高法院判決結果】:
本案在初審與上訴法院階段,均係由索賠人取得優勢。換句話說,即一審與二審的法院均支持應該係由CMR而非海牙規則,來規範本案整段航程中的海運段部分(一審與二審法院均認為海牙規則並非屬於所謂「強制規定」,爰非CMR第2條中所謂的「法律所規範的條件」(the conditions prescribed by law))。全案經上訴後,來到德國的最高法院,承審法官必須就CMR第2條中所謂的「法律所規範的條件」有所解釋與說明,以利未來遇有類似情況時大家得以遵循。
祇是此一問題亦點出了本案並沒有一個直接答案的尷尬,於是乎德國最高法院審視了CMR第2條當初的立法背景,暨考慮其他會員國家究會以何種方式來處理此一難題,譬如說:法國法院的司法實務見解,與荷蘭法院在Hoge
Raad der Nederlande案[5]與英國法院在Thermo
Engineers Ltd. and others –vs- Ferrymaster Ltd. and others案中的看法。
德國最高法院注意到這種「Piggy-back」的特殊運輸模式(即貨物依舊在卡車之上,而卡車則被另一種運輸載具載送到指定目的地),有可能會讓負責卡車運送的業者失去其應有的保障,蓋海牙/海牙威士比規則,在適用卡車與船舶間的運送契約上,係提供了不一樣的抗辯方式與責任限制。
準此,德國最高法院以為CMR第2條的最主要目的乃確保陸上運送人向船舶所有人追償的權利,得與其向貨主負擔的責任相對應。換句話說,此一規定係為避免陸上運送人負擔比海上運送人更嚴格的責任。
當德國最高法院在審視CMR的立法理由與經過時,其察覺CMR立法當時,其他規範空運、鐵路、海上運送的國際運送公約早已經存在,是德國最高法院以為CMR的簽署會員國對於各種不同的運輸模式所存在的風險應早有所認知,所以在若干情況下,讓這些國際運送公約有其適用餘地,似乎更有意義。也因為如此,在荷蘭的Hoge Raad案件中,承審法官認為CMR所謂的「法令所規範的條件」,即為這些「國際運送公約」(International Transport Conventions),而英國高院在審理「Ferrymaster Ltd.」案件中,亦持有相同的看法。
綜上所陳,德國最高法院以為:(一)當貨物的毀損滅失情事,很清楚地係發生在其他運送模式上時,則CMR不適用;(二)祇要陸上運送人的作為或不作為(action or omission)與事故的發生無關的話,則其並毋庸負責。
肆、【結語】:
本案在德國最高法院考量何者會是海上運送最典型的意外事故時,發現沉船、碰撞、擱淺、貨物因海水濕損,或船舶遭逢大浪時,均為形成海上貨物運送潛在危機的最可能原委,反而「失火」並不是海上運送典型的意外事故。雖然如此,大家仍一致同意「Und Adriyatik」的失火事件,會成為海上貨物運送案件上一典型的案例,從這個案例中業者可以學習到許多重要且寶貴的經驗。從本案中,我們發現在海上發生「失火」意外時,則避難措施較在陸地上將更為困難實施。換句話說,在海上失火的風險,將較在陸上失火的風險來得高(以本案為例,假設卡車當時並不在船上時,則卡車極有可能可以即時駛離失火現場。另外,不可否認的是船上的消防設備,遠不及陸地上的消防設施來得有效率)。準此,如果將「海上失火」併列為海上運送一典型的風險,亦不為過。
本案在另一方面,德國最高法院主張所謂貨物託運人(即貨物的賣方)與「另一種運輸模式」的運送人應該存在有一「虛擬」的運送合約(a fictitious
contract),爰攸關責任條款悉應依照此一合約決定之。隱藏此一虛擬的合約,表示運送的海運段理應該適用海牙規則,蓋此乃在這一個範疇內應該強制適用的條款(mandatorily applicable)。換句話說,所謂在合約中提及的「法律所規範的」(prescribed by law)暨陸上運送人在海運段的責任,悉應該依照海牙規則來決定,而非CMR(全文完)。
[3] 索賠人此一主張,乃係依據CMR第17條的規定:「1. The carrier shall be liable for the total or
partial loss of the goods and for damage thereto occurring between the time
when he takes over the goods and the time of delivery, as well as for any delay
in delivery. 2. The carrier shall,
however, be relieved of liability if the loss, damage or delay was caused by
the wrongful act or neglect of the claimant, by the instructions of the
claimant given otherwise than as the result of a wrongful act or neglect on the
part of the carrier, by inherent vice of the goods or through circumstances
which the carrier could not avoid and the consequences of which he was unable
to prevent. 3. The carrier shall not be
relieved of liability by reason of the defective condition of the vehicle used
by him in order to perform the carriage, or by reason of the wrongful act or
neglect of the person from whom he may have hired the vehicle or of the agents
or servants of the latter.
[4] CMR第2條規定:「1. Where the vehicle containing the goods is
carried over part of the journey by sea, rail, inland waterways or air, and,
except where the provisions of article 14 are applicable, the goods are not
unloaded from vehicle, this Convention shall nevertheless apply to the whole of
the carriage. Provided that to the
extent it is proved that any loss, damage or delay in delivery of the goods
which occurs during the carriage by the other means of transport was not caused
by act or omission of the carrier by road, but by some event which could only
occurred in the course of and by reason of the carriage by that other means of
transport, the liability of the carrier by road shall be determined not by this
convention but in the manner in which the liability of the carrier by the other
means of transport would have been determined if a contract for the carriage
the goods alone had been made by the sender with the carrier by the other means
of transport in accordance with the conditions prescribed by law for the
carriage of goods by that means of transport.
If, however, there are no such prescribed conditions, the liability of
the carrier by road shall be determined by this convention. 2. If the carrier by road is also himself the
carrier by the other means of transport, his liability shall also be determined
in accordance with the provisions paragraph 1 of this article, but as if, in
his capacities as carrier by road and carrier by the other means of transport,
he were two separate persons」。
沒有留言:
張貼留言