on the economic damage caused by cargo theft. This chapter will not take specific national law in consideration because of differences between the EU countries. International carriage of goods by road is regulated by the Treaty of Geneva from 1956, called the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road or in short the CMR. The Netherlands ratified the CMR as one of the first countries, and in 1961 the CMR came into force. The CMR became a huge success and even crossed the European borders. The red countries in figure A1 show the countries that have ratified the CMR, the yellow countries show the countries of the European Union. Figure 12 European Union within CMR One may conclude from the above figure, that the CMR is a widely spread and very important convention which may not be neglected in international road transport. The CMR is the starting point when looking at the legal aspects of transport law, national law may be applied when it deviates and in practice in the Netherlands the Algemene Vervoerscondities 2011 (AVC) complement national law and CMR. Specific national law including the AVC won’t be described while that will be too detailed for an economic paper. The CMR applies on the carriage of goods when sender or receiver of the goods resides in a country subject to the CMR (art. 1 CMR). The CMR is obligatory and parties can only in exceptional cases diverge from it. The importance of the CMR for the concept of fraud on the freight exchange follows from the rules of responsibility. Article 17 of the CMR states: “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” In the case of fraud the goods do not reach their final destination and the contractor of the carrier can legally hold the carrier responsible for the loss. Here the first difficulty arises; the carrier had the intention to steal the fraud and therefore already made use of a false identity so isn’t traceable that easy.
on the economic damage caused by cargo theft. This chapter will not take specific national law in consideration because of differences between the EU countries. International carriage of goods by road is regulated by the Treaty of Geneva from 1956, called the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road or in short the CMR. The Netherlands ratified the CMR as one of the first countries, and in 1961 the CMR came into force. The CMR became a huge success and even crossed the European borders. The red countries in figure A1 show the countries that have ratified the CMR, the yellow countries show the countries of the European Union. Figure 12 European Union within CMR One may conclude from the above figure, that the CMR is a widely spread and very important convention which may not be neglected in international road transport. The CMR is the starting point when looking at the legal aspects of transport law, national law may be applied when it deviates and in practice in the Netherlands the Algemene Vervoerscondities 2011 (AVC) complement national law and CMR. Specific national law including the AVC won’t be described while that will be too detailed for an economic paper. The CMR applies on the carriage of goods when sender or receiver of the goods resides in a country subject to the CMR (art. 1 CMR). The CMR is obligatory and parties can only in exceptional cases diverge from it. The importance of the CMR for the concept of fraud on the freight exchange follows from the rules of responsibility. Article 17 of the CMR states: “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” In the case of fraud the goods do not reach their final destination and the contractor of the carrier can legally hold the carrier responsible for the loss. Here the first difficulty arises; the carrier had the intention to steal the fraud and therefore already made use of a false identity so isn’t traceable that easy.