Najnoviji međunarodni ugovor koji uređuje prijevoz robe je Konvencija o ugovorima o međunarodnom prijevozu robe u cijelosti ili djelomično morem, iz 2009. Ova Konvencija, poznata pod nazivom Rotterdamska pravila, sadržava, između ostalog, i odredbe o sudskoj nadležnosti za odlučivanje u postupcima protiv prijevoznika i pomorskog izvršitelja za naknadu štete nastale tijekom prijevoza robe. Radi se o iznimno važnom pitanju za međunarodni prijevoz i međunarodnu trgovinu uopće, o čemu svjedoči i činjenica da je upravo u pogledu odredaba o sudskoj nadležnosti bilo ponajviše prijepora tijekom stručnog rada na izradi konačnog teksta Rotterdamskih pravila. U ovome radu te se odredbe kritički analiziraju i uspoređuju s uređenjem istog pitanja u pravu Europske unije (osobito Uredbom 44/2001) kao i s općeprihvaćenim rješenjima sadržanima u formularnim ugovorima o prijevozu robe morem. U zaključku se daje ocjena uspjelosti uređenja pitanja sudske nadležnosti u Rotterdamskim pravilima te iznosi stajalište o utjecaju sadržaja tih odredaba na odluku pojedinih država da postanu stranka toga međunarodnog ugovora.For many years, the international maritime community has sought uniformity and harmonization of law regulating carriage of goods by sea. Historically, there have been several well known attempts at establishing uniform international law in this field, including: the Hague Rules (1924); the Hague/Visby Rules (1968); the Hamburg Rules (1978); and the International Multimodal Transportation Convention (1980), but none of these attempts has managed to achieve the global level of acceptance necessary for international uniformity.
On 23 September 2009, sixteen countries signed new Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, known as “the Rotterdam Rules“. The Convention is designed to legislate not only for international maritime carriage of goods but also for international multimodal carriage of goods, where a maritime leg is provided for in the contract of carriage. It is best described as a “maritime plus” instrument. If entered into force, the Convention will significantly change the market position of maritime stakeholders, including shippers, carriers, freight forwarders and marine insurers.
The Hague and Hague-Visby Rules do not deal with jurisdiction. The provisions of the Rotterdam Rules on this issue are based upon the corresponding provisions in the Hamburg Rules. These chapters were the subject of focused discussion, contrasting those in favour of including such provisions with those who preferred to leave the areas to domestic or other rules. The situation was further complicated by the European Commission\u27s participation in the negotiations, since the EU have exclusive competence to negotiate on behalf of its Member State in respect of jurisdiction. A compromise solution was found, whereby the chapter on jurisdiction was made subject to an “opt-in” reservation: only those States that specifically make a declaration that they are to be bound by those chapters will be bound by them.
Under the Rotterdam Rules, actions against the carrier may be brought in the following places situated in a Contracting State: the domicile of the carrier; the place of receipt agreed in the contract of carriage; the place of delivery agreed in the contract of carriage; the port where the goods are initially loaded on a ship; or the port where the goods are finally discharged from a ship. Alternatively, the new Convention permits proceedings to be brought in a court designated by an agreement between the shipper and the carrier. However, such a court will be exclusive only exceptionally. In fact, the exclusive choice of court agreement is effective only if contained in a volume contract.
Should the claimant wish to file suit against the maritime performing party, the action must be filed in a competent court situated within the domicile of the maritime performing party, or the port where the goods were received or delivered by the maritime performing party or the port in which the maritime performing party performs its activities with respect to the goods.
After a dispute has arisen, the parties to the dispute may agree to resolve it in any competent court (means a court in a Contracting State). A competent court, before which a defendant appears without contesting jurisdiction in accordance with the rules of that court, has jurisdiction
