Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
| Jurisdiction | European Union |
| ECLI | ECLI:EU:C:2001:453 |
| Court | Court of Justice (European Union) |
| Date | 18 September 2001 |
| Docket Number | C-183/00 |
| Procedure Type | Reference for a preliminary ruling |
| Celex Number | 62000CC0052 |
Joined opinion of Mr Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 18 Septembre 2001. - Commission of the European Communities v French Republic. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 85/374/EEC - Product liability - Incorrect transposition. - Case C-52/00. - María Victoria González Sánchez v Medicina Asturiana SA. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción nº 5 de Oviedo - Spain. - Approximation of laws - Directive 85/374/EEC - Product liability - Relationship with other systems of liability. - Case C-183/00.
European Court reports 2002 Page I-03827
I - Introduction
1. Both these cases concern the interpretation of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (the Directive).
Case C-183/00 is a reference for a preliminary ruling on a question concerning Article 13 of the Directive, while Case C-52/00 is an action for failure to fulfil obligations brought by the Commission against the French Republic under Article 226 EC on the ground that the French legislation implementing the Directive does not comply with Articles 3(3), 7 and 9 thereof. The French Government has defended the action by relying, among other grounds, on the wording of Article 13 of the Directive. The fundamental issue in both cases is whether the Directive is aimed at achieving total or minimum harmonisation of liability for damage caused by defective products within the Community.
First of all, I shall outline the legal framework and summarise the facts relevant to each case.
II - Provisions of Community law
2. Under Article 1 of the Directive, producers are liable for damage caused by defects in their products. Article 3(3) provides that, where the producer of a product cannot be identified, each supplier of the product is to be treated as its producer unless he informs the injured person of the identity of the producer, or of the person who supplied him with the product, within a reasonable time. The situation is the same in the case of imported products where the name of the importer, referred to in Article 3(2), does not appear on the product, even if the producer's name does appear.
3. Article 7 provides that the producer is not liable under the Directive if he proves:
...
(d) that the defect is due to compliance of the product with mandatory regulations issued by the public authorities; or
(e) that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when he put the product into circulation was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered; or
(f) ...
4. Article 9 defines damage for the purpose of Article 1 of the Directive in the following terms:
...
(b) damage to, or destruction of, any item of property other than the defective product itself, with a lower threshold of EUR 500, provided that the item of property:
(i) is of a type ordinarily intended for private use or consumption, and
(ii) was used by the injured person mainly for his own private use or consumption.
...
5. Article 13 provides:
This Directive shall not affect any rights which an injured person may have according to the rules of the law of contractual or non-contractual liability or a special liability system existing at the moment when this Directive is notified.
6. Article 15(1) stipulates that each Member State may:
...
(b) by way of derogation from Article 7(e), maintain or, subject to the procedure set out in paragraph 2 of this Article, provide in this legislation that the producer shall be liable even if he proves that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when he put the product into circulation was not such as to enable the existence of a defect to be discovered.
III - National legislation and facts
A - Case C-52/00
1. National legislation
7. Under the French legislation transposing the Directive into national law, that is to say Law No 98-389 of 19 May 1998, the following provisions, inter alia, on liability for damage caused by defective products were incorporated into the French Civil Code:
- Article 1386-1 provides that producers are liable for damage caused by defective products.
- Article 1386-2 states that the provisions of this title govern compensation for loss and damage caused by personal injury or damage to any item of property other than the defective product itself.
- Article 1386-7(1) provides that the vendor or hirer, except a lessor under a hire-purchase agreement or a hirer assimilable thereto, or any other supplier in the course of business, are liable for safety defects in their products on the same basis as the producer.
- Article 1386-11(1) provides that a producer is automatically liable unless he proves:
...
(4) that, at the time when the product was put into circulation, scientific and technical knowledge was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered;
(5) that the defect is due to compliance of the product with mandatory regulations issued by the public authorities;
...
- Article 1386-12, second paragraph, stipulates as follows:
The producer cannot invoke the grounds of exemption from liability under paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 1386-11 and if, in the event of a defect occurring within a period of 10 years after the product was put into circulation, he has failed to take appropriate measures to avert the harmful consequences thereof.
2. The facts
8. Under Article 19 of the Directive, Member States were required to transpose the Directive into national law by 30 July 1988. Since the French Republic had not effected implementation within the time-limit stipulated, the Court of Justice delivered a judgment to that effect on 13 January 1993. Finally, after a delay of almost 10 years, the French Republic on 19 May 1998 enacted legislation transposing the Directive into national law. That law introduced into France a system of liability without fault, under which there was no maximum limit.
9. Following an exchange of letters in March 1998 between the Commission's services and France's Permanent Representative, the Commission decided to commence proceedings under Article 226 EC for failure by France to fulfil its obligations, and on 6 November 1998 issued a letter of formal notice. The French Government replied by letter of 12 January 1999. The reasoned opinion was issued on 6 August 1999. The French Government replied on 6 October 1999.
10. In this action, the Commission seeks a declaration from the Court of Justice that the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 9, 3(3) and 7 of the Directive:
- by providing in Article 1386-2 of the Civil Code that the provisions concerning liability for damage caused by defective products also apply where the damage is less than EUR 500;
- by providing in Article 1386-7 of the Civil Code that the supplier of a defective product is liable on the same basis as the producer;
- by providing in Article 1386-12 of the Civil Code that the producer must prove that he has taken the steps appropriate to avert the harmful consequences of a defective product in order to be able to rely on the grounds of exemption from liability provided for in Article 7(d) and (e) of the Directive.
B - Case C-183/00
1. National legislation
11. The Directive was transposed into Spanish law by Law 22/1994 of 6 July 1994. The last of the final provisions of that law provides as follows:
Articles 25 and 28 of the General Law for the Protection of Consumers and Users shall not apply to civil liability for damage caused by defective products included in Article 2 of this Law.
Article 2 of the aforementioned Spanish law is similar to Article 2 of the Directive which defines what is meant by product for the purposes of the Directive.
2. The facts and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
12. Ms González Sánchez received a blood transfusion at the hospital, Centro Médico de Asturias, following which she became infected with the hepatitis C virus. As a result of that, Ms González Sánchez brought an action for compensation for damage against Medicina Asturiana SA, the proprietor of the abovementioned hospital.
13. Ms González Sánchez based her claim on the general provisions concerning liability contained in the Spanish Civil Code and on Articles 25, 26 and 28 of Law 26/84. Medicina Asturiana SA denied all liability, alleging, among other grounds, that, under Law 22/94, Articles 25, 26 and 28 of Law 26/84 no longer applied.
14. The referring court states in the order for reference that blood and blood products are products within the meaning of Law 26/84 and of Law 22/94, and that, accordingly, in principle, both laws are applicable, both at the time when the transfusion was carried out (as regards Law 26/84) and at the time when the product was put into circulation (as regards Law 22/94), but that, under Law 22/94, Article 25 et seq. of Law 26/84 could no longer be applied.
15. The Spanish court considered that, before delivering judgment, it was necessary to submit a question for a preliminary ruling, in view of the consequences of applying one law or the other for the purposes of assessing the burden of proof, on account of the different systems of liability established by each law, and in order to identify the persons liable.
16. The national court has also indicated that Law 26/84 lays down a system of liability without fault, whereby the plaintiff needs only to prove the damage and the causal relationship, whereas the defendant will only escape liability by proving that the victim was exclusively at fault or, alternatively, that the cause was force majeure or pure chance.
17. The Directive, and, consequently, Law 22/94, require the injured party to prove not only the damage and the causal relationship, but also the defect in...
To continue reading
Request your trial