Ladies and Gentlemen, today I will discuss another extremely important case related to the functioning of the TSL industry, directly related to the principles of immobilization of cargo. Well, I recently received the justification of the last judgment of the final judgment of the District Court in Krakow. It is true that the judgment is September 22, 2020, but we waited a very long time for the justification of this court judgment, and therefore we have received it. I decided to share with you this very important information resulting from this next, one could say groundbreaking judgment, determining that, in principle, the responsibility for launching loading units in road transport rests with the sender. Ladies and Gentlemen, on the carrier. This is so important, ladies and gentlemen, the judgment www.pajacyk.pl. This year, of course, I will place the zmiowli state under this video with the signature tab and you can read the entire justification of the judgment for yourselves. But the judgment is so important because it is the second, you could say twin, judgment to the judgment about which I already made another video many months ago, because it was then the judgment of the District Court, i.e. also the court of second instance. At that time, in Białystok, we currently have the judgment from Krakow. I will show you again. This judgment and these judgments can be said to be twins in their idea. The courts of second instance in both cases noted that in fact, the regulations of both national and international transport law, contrary to the generally prevailing opinion, do not impose an obligation, in principle, do not provide for the consequences of liability for damage to a cargo unit during transport. In principle, they do not impose them on carriers, which means, ladies and gentlemen, confirms everything I have already mentioned many times in previous videos and what I have informed about many times in publications on our website. Because of the pravna.pl journey, i.e. the court accepts the argument that, in principle, liability for the consequences of improper immobilization of cargo units rests on the wrists. This is why the second judgment is so important. The judgment is so important because although the one from Białystok, this first year, was a kind of break in the narrative of common courts, this judgment from Krakow already constitutes a certain kind of dominant line of jurisprudence of common courts. That is why it is so incredibly important because this is another court of second instance which, in a final judgment , denied Fejsa's filing of papers for years. As if, as a rule, carriers were liable for immobilization of cargo units. Okay, but what is the difference between this judgment from Białystok and this judgment from Krakow? Well, ladies and gentlemen, it must be said that they are in Krakow. He emphasized an extremely interesting aspect on another issue related to the carrier's liability, because the court in Białystok in this first judgment assumed that they would begin to justify the content of national and international transport law, that as a rule, the carrier is liable, and the entity that has information about the weight of the cargo, about the method of packaging the cargo unit packaging, about the method of loading, and on this basis, the court in Białystok dismissed the shipper's claim for damages resulting from transport, i.e., pay attention to these elements, such as... I would say technical and engineering, but of course, conditioned by national or international transport law. However, the court in Krakow pointed out a separate aspect, it said that the carrier cannot be liable for something for which it was not at fault, to put it colloquially, that is, the court in Krakow noted that if the transport operator is not liable If the carrier is not directly at fault or has not committed gross negligence in carrying out the transport, then he cannot be held liable, i.e. he has exposed this aspect of guilt, right? So he said that because the carrier cannot be guilty and is not guilty for irregularities related to the very process of preparing the loading unit, its packaging, its arrangement on the means of transport, its securing, selecting the appropriate method of securing the loading unit, then if the carrier is not responsible for all the circumstances that occurred in the chain I just mentioned, then he cannot also be responsible for the consequences of damage resulting from the immobilization of this loading unit. Unless he has committed gross negligence and, for example, in the transport process during the export, simply depressurized, so to speak, the entire structure of the Ooo related to the immobilization of the loading units, for example, he has removed some of the straps or damaged some of the straps or changed the securing method, right? And then, of course, he would perhaps have committed gross negligence, and if he had committed such gross negligence or obvious negligence in the process itself related to immobilization, then they could be held liable. In another case, only the sender is liable. Of course, in this justification, when you read them yourself, you will see that they are in Krakow. He also raised and addressed issues of a purely engineering and technical nature, which is correct. They are in Krakow. Note that since the carrier did not know the mass of the loading unit in advance, at all, because it was a group of loading units. Therefore, there is no possibility of independently making, for example, mathematical calculations, physical requirements for securing means, or choosing a securing method. Since he did not examine the properties and characteristics of the loading units themselves, nor their packing, nor their arrangement on the means of transport, it is very important that Mateusz is another court ruling that creates a dominant line of jurisprudence, one could say, exempting carriers from liability for the consequences of improper immobilization of loading units. It often happens that during audits, training sessions, lectures, and presentations at various conferences, which he often organizes for logisticians, this type of case law of common courts does not reach the awareness of representatives of the logistics industry with understanding, one could say, and full acceptance with satisfaction. And this is not surprising. Of course, over the years, an unfair view has been developed regarding the carrier's liability, based on normative regulations. Now, it's not so easy for everyone to come to terms with the current state of affairs. In fact, ladies and gentlemen, this state of affairs has existed in an unchanged form and legal formula for decades. In fact, one can only say that it was incorrectly interpreted by both participants in the TSL industry and some representatives of the judiciary, i.e., the courts. It's good that it has changed. Well, on the senders' side, some work needs to be done. There's no point in being offended. Accept the situation as it is or accept the court rulings with understanding and understand that if the carrier doesn't pass on a certain gross-gross weight, they don't know the friction coefficients, they don't know whether the friction coefficients have been equalized between, for example, the pallet base and the load unit or the individual layers of the load unit on the pallet. If not for the method of placing the load unit on the means of transport, if not for the method used by the sender to activate the load unit, then they transported you without any possibility of knowing the properties of the load unit. The carrier has no way to properly immobilize the cargo unit ad hoc, immediately after reaching the loading dock. I think it's necessary to approach all individuals and links in this transport chain with understanding. They should approach their role and capabilities, but also their limitations, so we should treat each other with respect. It's true that both carriers should treat logisticians with respect, and logisticians should treat certain opportunities and objective limitations with respect and understanding. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for this episode. I'm glad we have another ruling that confirms the narrative and arguments I've been raising for many years. This is a ruling issued in a case handled by lawyers from our law firm, the Viggen law firm. We invite you to training sessions. It seems to me that we will be reluctant to conduct further proceedings in this area, but also, ladies and gentlemen, I invite logisticians. For many years, many, many, very often, the world's largest corporations organize and carry out audits in which I implement procedures related to immobilizing cargo units. Therefore, I invite you in the context of this ruling. previous judgment to cooperate and perhaps heal the current situation which also exists in some of your enterprises, thank you very much, I invite you to the next film, I wish you all the best and