In 1985 the Council unanimously adopted a directive whose object was to approximate
the laws of the Member States on the liability of a producer for damage caused
by a defect in his products. This scheme of strict liability for defective products
was intended to eliminate obstacles to the unity of the common market and the
distortions of competition resulting from differences between legislation in
the Member States.
The Court of Justice has today ruled in three cases which raise the question
of a national legislature's freedom of action when implementing the directive.
Does the directive allow Member States a margin of discretion when they lay
down rules of strict liability for defective products or are they completely
bound by the harmonised scheme of civil liability established by the directive?
The Court of Justice points out, first of all in the three judgments
that the legal basis adopted by the Council does not provide for any power of
the Member States to maintain or adopt provisions differing from the Community
harmonising measures. It states that, having regard to its wording and purpose,
the directive establishes total harmonisation of the matters to which it relates.
This type of strict liability allows the victim to seek reparation directly
from the producer, who is liable for the damage caused by a defect in his product
if the victim proves the existence of damage, a defect in the product and a
causal link between that defect and the damage. However, the directive provides
that property damage is covered only if it exceeds EUR 500. An action was brought
against the Hellenic Republic and the French Republic, in particular because
they had not included that EUR 500 limit in their national law.
The Court points out that the directive is a result of a complex process in
which conflicting interests were balanced and that the threshold of EUR 500
reflected the desire of the Community legislature to avoid an excessive number
of actions brought by persons who had been victims of defective products but
who had suffered only minor property damage. Nevertheless, the rightsof victims
are not ignored, even though they cannot invoke the more advantageous evidential
rules offered by the directive: the victims may resort to the classical remedies
under contract or tort law with regard to property damage of less than EUR 500.
The Hellenic Republic and the French Republic have therefore been found to
have failed to fulfil their obligations in that regard.
Similarly, the French legislation, which provides for the liability of a supplier
and allows him in turn to bring proceedings against the producer, has the negative
effect of increasing the number of actions brought, which is what the directive
precisely seeks to avoid.
Finally, a Spanish Court has asked in substance whether the directive must
be interpreted as meaning that the rights conferred by the legislation of a
Member State on the victims of damage caused by a defective product may be limited
or restricted following the implementation of the directive into that Member
State's national law. The Court has replied in the affirmative.
It considers that the directive does not allow the Member States to maintain
a general scheme of strict liability for defective products which differs from
that of the directive. However, the victim retains the right to bring proceedings
in contract or tort.
|
Available in English, French, German, Greek and Spanish. For the full text of the judgments, please consult our Internet page For further information please contact Mme Sophie Mosca-Bischoff: Tel: (00 352) 4303 3205; Fax: (00 352) 4303 2034 |