(iii) Conflict of laws: the extension mechanism is a public policy measure that applies differently before the French judge depending on whether it affects procedural law or substantive law. 

Where time limits result from purely procedural provisions, such as preclusive limitation periods or enrolment time limits, the question does not raise any difficulty given that proceedings are traditionally subject to the law of the court before which the action is pending, save for limited exceptions, especially for the assessment of the interest in bringing proceedings.

Where time limits concern substantive law, such as time bar or termination clauses, one should in principle refer to the law applicable to the merits, in accordance with conflict-of-laws rules, to determine the applicable framework: duration, starting point, grounds for suspension or interruption and sanction. Correlatively, the mechanism for extending time limits as provided by the Ordinance will not be applicable when the disputed situation is subject to foreign law.

Nevertheless, this mechanism may become relevant to the disputed situation depending on whether it is subject to an international treaty or to national law.

• In the first case, when the dispute is subject to an international treaty, such as the Hague Rules on the liability of the maritime carrier, the provisions of French law which allow the calculation of time limits (calculation, suspension, interruption, etc.) remain applicable in ancillary manner, in the absence of a provision in the treaty. By analogy, the mechanism for the extension of time limits may be applied, in particular in respect of time bar, as a supplement to treaty provisions. 
• In the second case, where the dispute is subject to the provisions of a foreign law, such as Italian law, which subjects the claim for a land carrier's liability to a one-year limitation period, the provisions of French law are in principle radically excluded from the dispute. The litigant should therefore comply with the provisions of the foreign law, which are exclusively applicable. Nevertheless, one should not exclude that a French court may exceptionally apply the extension mechanism notwithstanding the application of a foreign law if the steps required by that law had to be taken, at least in part, on French territory.

2. Implementation of the extension 

Where the above-mentioned applicability requirements are met, the litigant is entitled to benefit from the extension of time limits provided in Article 2 of the Ordinance.

The effect of this extension is to postpone the time limit under the following conditions: all "protected acts" which were to be performed during the "protected period" shall be deemed to have been performed in due time if they are done within the applicable time limit starting from the end of the protected period, and within a maximum of two months as of the end date. 

In other words, the extension of time limits is a dual mechanism of:

suspension during the "protected period" (state of health emergency plus one month); and

• Interruption limited to two months as of the end of this "protected period".
• All "protected acts" that were to be performed during the "protected period" will thus be subject to a new time limit, starting from the end of said period, which may not exceed two months. 

The following are thus concerned:

• the limitation period for a claim against a maritime carrier, which is one year from the date of delivery of the goods (Article L 5422-18 of the Transport Code, Article 3(6) of the Hague Rules);
• the limitation period for a claim against a stevedore, which is one year from the date of delivery of the goods (article L 5422-25 of the Transport Code);
• the limitation period for a claim against the land carrier, which is one year from the date of delivery of the goods (article L 133-6 of the Commercial Code);
• the limitation period for a claim against a freight forwarder, which is one year from the date of delivery of the goods (article L 133-7 of the Commercial Code);
• the limitation period for a recourse claim against a land carrier or a freight forwarder, which is one month from the date of the initial claim (Article L 133-6 of the Commercial Code);
• the limitation period for a recourse claim against a maritime carrier or stevedore, which is three months from the date of the initial claim or amicable settlement (Article L 5422-18 of the Transport Code). 

In practice, where the time limit has expired during the "protected period", the initial claims against the aforementioned transport auxiliaries and the recourse claims provided in maritime law may be brought within three months from the end of the state of public health emergency, whereas recourse claims against a freight forwarder and a land carrier must be brought within a period of two months from the end of the state of public health emergency.

Our Reed Smith Coronavirus team includes multidisciplinary lawyers from Asia, EME and the United States who stand ready to advise you on the issues above or others you may face related to COVID-19.

For more information on the legal and business implications of COVID-19, visit the Reed Smith Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resource Center or contact us at COVID-19@reedsmith.com