Abstract

The Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) is one of the most successful unifications of private law. However, as more States ratify the Convention, there are more courts with different legal backgrounds and differing levels of preparedness to face the challenge of applying the CMR. Even for the most advanced adjudicators, the application of the CMR is not always a simple task as there remain ambiguities about its content that divide scholars and practitioners. However, some jurisdictions are much less integrated in these debates, and this has obvious effects on their courts and the way the CMR is applied. The purpose of this article is to familiarize readers with the practice of Latvian courts applying the CMR. The CMR has a rather impressive presence in Latvian jurisprudence in terms of quantity. At the same time, courts apply it in an isolated manner, rarely consulting any doctrinal sources and never drawing inspiration from foreign case law. As a result, some of the solutions offered by Latvian courts seem extremely detached from the ‘internationally accepted’ understanding of the CMR. In fact, even simple legal questions often receive unexpected and, unfortunately, incorrect solutions. Nevertheless, some of the issues raised in these decisions are genuinely difficult to resolve and, therefore, could be useful for other jurisdictions.

中文翻译：

---

拉脱维亚法院实践中的CMR

摘要

《国际公路货物运输合同公约》（CMR）是私法最成功的统一之一。但是，随着越来越多的国家批准《公约》，越来越多的法院具有不同的法律背景和不同的准备水平，以应对适用CMR的挑战。即使对于最先进的裁决者，CMR的应用也不总是一件容易的事，因为关于其内容的歧义使学者和从业者之间存在分歧。但是，一些司法管辖区在这些辩论中的整合程度要低得多，这对他们的法院和CMR的适用方式产生了明显的影响。本文的目的是使读者熟悉拉脱维亚法院采用CMR的做法。就数量而言，CMR在拉脱维亚判例中具有相当可观的地位。同时，法院以孤立的方式应用它，很少咨询任何学说渊源，也从未从外国判例法中汲取灵感。结果，拉脱维亚法院提供的某些解决方案似乎与对CMR的“国际认可”理解格格不入。实际上，即使是简单的法律问题也常常会收到意想不到的，不幸的是错误的解决方案。然而，这些决定中提出的某些问题确实难以解决，因此可能对其他司法管辖区有用。即使是简单的法律问题，也常常会收到意想不到的，不幸的是错误的解决方案。然而，这些决定中提出的一些问题确实难以解决，因此可能对其他司法管辖区有用。即使是简单的法律问题，也常常会收到意想不到的，不幸的是不正确的解决方案。然而，这些决定中提出的一些问题确实难以解决，因此可能对其他司法管辖区有用。