, Quelles en sont les implications pour les transporteurs routiers ?, p. 6, IRU symposium on the RR, Geneva, nov. 2010. 10 AUTF (Association of Users of Freigh Forwarding)
, ) : www.iru.org.; J. Putzeys, RR versus CMR ?, Liber amicorum M 12 All documents synthesized in :The Rotterdam rules: an attempt to clarify certain concerns which have emerged, 11 Position of the IRU (International Road Union) on the Rotterdam rules, 2009.
, The relevant papers were the following
, Report of the fifty-first session of the Working Party on Intermodal Transport and Logistics of the U.N. Economic and Social Council of 6, Hereafter " UNECE Report, vol.24123, 2009.
, A document of the European Shipper's Council with an analysis of the Rotterdam Rules
, A paper of the Working Group on Sea Transport of FIATA being Annex two to FIATA's document MTJ/507 of 26, 2009.
, The Position Paper of the European Association for Forwarding Transport Logistic and Customs Services- CLECAT
, 14 Road (CMR): 8,33 SDRs per kilogram; sea (RR): 3 SDRs
, 55 For instance, a french Court of appeal decided that prescription will continue to be ruled by the CMR (art. 32) and not by the HVR (Art. 3 § 6) : CA Aix en Provence, 30 mai 1991 : Rev. Scapel, pp.105-194, 1991.
, 57 Under article 47 of the CMR, International Court of Justice has jurisdiction to interpret the convention, but no action have never been referred to it, p.474, 2011.
, Quand la mer devient route, Liber amicorum L. Tricot, Kluwer, p.411, 1988.
, Lloyd's of London press, 1984 ; M. Clarke, International carriage of goods by road, LLP, issue.5, p.11, 1981.
, Bull. 1988 IV N° 234 p. 161; JCP 1988 p. IV. 330, Unif. Law Rev, pp.221-449, 1988.
, BT 1986, n°2220 ; contra : Cour de cassation. (belg.) 2 fév. 1979, RW 1978-79, col. 2109 s. For a more detailed explanation, see J. Putzeys, op. cit., spec. p. 413 s. Final DRAFT Multimodal Transport ? Univ. Of Tulane, 1986.