The "Grandiosa" Case

February 2025:

The "Grandiosa" Case: Jurisdiction in Road Transport Cases - The Norwegian Supreme Court denies leave to appeal in Road Transport Jurisdiction case.

In a decision rendered on 22 April 2024, the Hålogaland Court of Appeal addressed the issue of jurisdiction road transport cases, focusing on the relationship between the Norwegian Carriage of Goods by Road Act (incorporating the CMR Convention) and the Lugano Convention. An appeal to the Norwegian Supreme Court was lodged, but leave to appeal was denied. GH Law represented the contractual carrier in the case.

1. Background and Issues

The Norwegian wholesaler, Asko Nord AS, sought to transport a consignment of "Grandiosa" frozen pizzas from Stranda to Tromsø in Norway. The transport was arranged through in-house logistics provider, Asko Transport AS, which booked a Danish transport company that, in turn, engaged an Estonian transport company for the domestic leg. A preexisting framework agreement between the Asko Group and the Danish transport company ("Framework Agreement") incorporated the General Conditions of the Nordic Association of Freight Forwarders (NSAB 2015), which includes a jurisdiction clause granting exclusive jurisdiction to the courts at the freight forwarders'/carriers' principal place of business.

The consignment of frozen pizzas was damaged, prompting Asko Nord AS and its subrogated cargo insurers to commence legal proceedings in Norway against the Danish transport company (as the contractual carrier) and the Estonian transport company (as the actual carrier).

The Norwegian Carriage of Goods by Road Act ("CGRA") implements the rules of the CMR and includes regulations applicable to domestic transports. Section 42 of the CGRA, reflecting Article 31 of the CMR, stipulates that legal actions in international transports may be brought before the courts of the defendant's principal place of business, where the goods were taken over by the carrier, or at the agreed delivery destination. The last paragraph of Section 42 states that for domestic transports, legal action may be brought in accordance with the general rules on jurisdiction pursuant to the Norwegian Dispute Act, as well as the carrier's principal place of business, where the goods were taken over, or the agreed place of delivery. Section 5 of the CGRA states that the provisions of the act cannot be deviated from to the detriment of the sender or consignee (recipient of the goods).

Asko Nord AS and its insurers argued for jurisdiction in Norway according to the last paragraph of Section 42 of the CGRA, asserting that this provision's mandatory applicability prevented any deviation that would restrict cargo interests' right to commence legal action at the venues listed in Section 42. Alternatively, they argued that the CGRA applied as lex specialis, implementing the rules of the CMR and thus rendering the matter outside the scope of the Lugano Convention pursuant to Article 67 of the Lugano Convention.

Both the contractual and actual carriers argued that there was no jurisdiction in Norway, as the parties had agreed to jurisdiction in the Framework Agreement.

2. The Relationship Between the Lugano Convention and the CGRA

The Court of Appeal first considered the apparent contradiction between the Lugano Convention (parallel to the Brussels I Regulation) and the CGRA, both of which set out mandatory provisions on jurisdiction. The Court held that the Lugano Convention applied exclusively within its scope and that its provisions prevailed over other national legislation on jurisdiction, including the CGRA. Consequently, the Court concluded that the provisions on jurisdiction in the CGRA did not apply, and jurisdiction would have to be decided according to the rules of the Lugano Convention.

3. The Application of Lugano Convention Article 67

The Court further held that Article 67 of the Lugano Convention (reflecting Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation) did not apply, as the rules on domestic transport in the CGRA were not implemented according to Norway's obligations under the CMR, which only concerns international transport.

4. Jurisdiction Under the Lugano Convention

The main issue under the Lugano Convention was whether an exclusive jurisdiction agreement had been entered into in accordance with Article 23 of the Convention (parallel to Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation), thereby prorogating jurisdiction to Denmark with derogative effect on other alternatives.

Asko Nord AS contended that it was not a party to the Framework Agreement, asserting that the contract for carriage under the Framework Agreement was entered into by Asko Transport AS in its capacity as sender and contractual carrier vis-à-vis Asko Nord AS. The Danish transport company argued, based on a concrete interpretation of the Framework Agreement, that it applied to the entire Asko company group, including Asko Nord.

The Court of Appeal did not find it necessary to determine whether Asko Nord AS was a party to the Framework Agreement, as it held that Asko Nord AS' claim against the carriers was a direct action and that Asko Nord AS therefore stepped into the rights of Asko Transport AS against the carriers, including its exclusive jurisdiction agreement.

The Court did not provide further reasoning regarding the effects of a jurisdiction agreement on third parties under the Lugano Convention. It is noted that jurisdiction for claims in transports with multiple carriers has been the subject of several cases before the European Court of Justice, including the corresponding provisions under the Brussels I Regulation (see, e.g., MS "Tilly Russ", ECJ case C-71/83 (1984) ECR 2503 and Coreck Maritime, ECJ case C-387/98 (2000) ECR I-9337).

A further appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment was lodged to the Norwegian Supreme Court, but leave to appeal was not granted.