In Denmark, disputes concerning liability under the CMR Act are rarely resolved through arbitration, whereas a significant number of such cases are brought before the courts. This is likely due to several factors, including a lack of tradition for arbitration in this field, the absence of arbitration clauses in standard industry contracts, the relatively small financial value of many disputes, and the challenges associated with involving subcontracting carriers with recourse liability in arbitration proceedings. Another contributing factor may be the uncertainty surrounding the interpretation and significance of Art. 33 of the CMR, which establishes a specific condition for the arbitrability of CMR disputes. In Juristen, Volume 2025, Issue 1, Jesper Windahl has published an article examining the scope and implications of this provision, including its relevance for arbitration clauses in transport agreements more broadly.
Read the whole article/document here
