FRANCE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Diane Bandon-Tourret and Agathe Clarac, LexCase
moment from which the condition of the victim of the personal injury is no longer evolving, so that in the case of an evolving pathology the limitation period does not begin to run, and not from the day on which the injury definitely appeared, in connec - tion with the defective product, regardless of its subsequent evolution. • Article 11 of Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985, according to which the rights conferred on the vic - tim under the Directive lapse on expiry of a period of ten years from the date on which the product causing the damage was put into circulation, con - trary to the provisions of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that it would deprive the victim suffering progressive damage caused by a defective product of his/her right of access to a court. The CJEU issued its preliminary ruling on the ques - tions raised by the Rouen Court of Appeal on the 26 of March 2026, as follows. Answer to question 1 The CJEU concurs with the reasoning adopted by the French Court of Cassation (Civil Division, First Cham - ber, 15 November 2023, No 22-21.178) and confirms that an action based on fault is admissible because the required faultful conduct differs from the defect defined in Article 6 of the Directive, in reference to the absence of safety that could legitimately be expected. In this case, the torts invoked consist of: • keeping a product on the market when the pro - ducer is aware of a safety defect; • a breach of the duty of care regarding the risks associated with the product; and • more broadly, “any other fault linked to the defect”. This therefore provides grounds for interpreting the fault as a breach of a regulatory obligation on the part of economic operators, particularly with regard to healthcare products. The classification of the infor - mation relating to the product in question, which con - stitutes an extrinsic defect, remains open. Answer to question 2
The CJEU has ruled that the three-year period begins to run as soon as the victim has sufficient knowledge of the damage suffered, the alleged fault and the iden - tity of the producer, without it being necessary for the damage to have become final within the meaning of domestic law. The French practice of having the limitation period run from the date of consolidation (First Civil Chamber, 15 May 2024, No 22-23.985 and First Civil Chamber, 5 July 2023, No 22-18.914), particularly in cases of personal injury, is therefore not in line with the Direc - tive. With regard to progressive conditions, the CJEU specifies that the three-year limitation period applies and states that it runs from the date on which the injured party became aware or should reasonably have become aware of the damage, the defect and the identity of the economic operator. The progression of the damage over time does not permit an indefinite postponement of the starting point. Also, once the victim has had, or should reasonably have had, suf - ficient knowledge of the damage, the defect and the producer, the three-year period begins to run. Subse - quent aggravations may be compensated for within the same action but do not, in principle, give rise to a The CJEU begins by recalling the nature of the ten- year period provided for in Article 11 of Directive 85/374 (Article 1245-15 of the Civil Code), which it describes as a limitation period, upon the expiry of which the producer’s liability ceases, unless legal pro - ceedings have been brought before that time. This time limit is therefore an extinction of the right to bring proceedings. The CJEU considers that the ten-year time limit is an integral part of the regime and cannot be set aside solely on the grounds of a subsequent development of the damage. The fact that the damage progresses does not prevent it from being detectable and identifiable within the ten-year period, thereby enabling the victim to take action. Consequently, applying the cut-off period in this type of situation does not render access to the courts illusory. On the other hand, the CJEU ruling of 19 December 2024 ( Ford Italia v ZP ) on a preliminary ruling extends new limitation period. Answer to question 3
147 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook