FRANCE Law and Practice Contributed by: Diane Bandon-Tourret and Agathe Clarac, LexCase
2.10 Courts in Which Product Liability Claims Are Brought In civil matters, the competent courts are gen - erally the civil courts ( Tribunal d’instance in civil matters, for all personal actions or actions up to the value of EUR10,000, and Tribunaux judici- aire ) or the commercial courts ( Tribunal de com- merce ). In the case of healthcare products, the admin - istrative courts may deal with product liability under the no-fault liability regime applicable to healthcare establishments in respect of the healthcare products they use (a regime estab - lished by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its decision CJEU, 21 December 2011, CHU de Besançon c/ Thomas D..., CPAM du Jura, aff. C-495/10) and subsequent warranty claims (depending on the nature of the contracts between the establishments and the producers). In criminal matters, special courts have jurisdic - tion. Finally, in the case of health products, the alter - native methods introduced via the CCI or ONIAM are also likely to apply. 2.11 Appeal Mechanisms for Product Liability Claims In civil cases, the appeal procedure is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The time limit for appeal is: • one month for contentious judgments (CPC, Article 538); and • 15 days for orders including summary orders (CPC, Article 490) or those of the pre-trial judge (CPC, Article 795) as well as for deci - sions of the enforcement judge (CPC, Articles R. 121-20 and R. 311-7).
Appeals against criminal judgments are gov - erned by specific rules set out in the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.12 Defences to Product Liability Claims In the case of defective products, the producer is automatically liable unless he/she can prove: • that he/she did not put the product into circu - lation; • in regards to the circumstances, it must be considered that the defect which caused the damage did not exist at the time when the product was put into circulation by him/her or that this defect arose subsequently; • that the product was not intended for sale or for any other form of distribution; and • that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time he/she put the product into circulation did not allow the existence of the defect to be detected, except where the damage was caused by an element of the human body or by products derived from it. On that aspect, the Cour de Cassation has decided to refer a question to the Conseil con- stitutionnel on the point of knowing whether, in order to exonerate the liability of the manufac - turer of a defective product on the basis of the risk of development, the difference in treatment existing between the victims of bodily injury resulting from a health product, depending on whether or not this product is derived from the human body, is contrary to the principle of equality before the law (Civ. 1st, 5 January 2023, FS-B, No 22-17.439) – which was confirmed by the Constitutional Council (Decision No 2023- 1036 QPC of 10 March 2023). On that matter, in a case involving Mediator, a drug used to treat diabetes, the Cour de Cassation recently ruled that the producer’s knowledge of the prod -
81
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook