Acta Iuris Stetinensis

In his commentary, the author examines the position adopted by the Court of Appeal in Poznań in its decision of 24 July 2019. The purpose of the commentary was to assess the correctness of the position taken by that court, which stated that the jurisdiction indicated in the agreement between the parties to an international contract for the carriage of goods subject to the CMR Convention is not exclusive, i.e. that the determination of jurisdiction in the agreement does not preclude bringing an action before the courts of other countries indicated in Article 31(1)(a) and (b) of the CMR. The method of investigation of the law in force is applied, and the provisions of the CMR Convention are interpreted in accordance with the rules of interpretation laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The commentary refers to the case law of the CJEU, as well as to views presented in academic literature from both domestic and foreign sources. The author concludes that the jurisdiction specified in the agreement between the parties is not exclusive. This is determined by the wording of Article 31(1) of the CMR, which indicates that a case may be brought before both the courts specified in the agreement and the courts of the countries indicated in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of that provision. The application of the general rule of interpretation has led to unambiguous results that left no room for a different interpretation. The author concludes that recourse to systemic or purposive arguments cannot lead to a change in the meaning resulting from the clear wording of the provision.