FRANCE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Diane Bandon-Tourret and Agathe Clarac, LexCase
period runs from the date on which the defective product that caused the damage was placed on the market or put into service; or in the case of substantially modified products, from the date on which the product was made available on the market or put into service following its substan - tial modification. Henceforth, by way of deroga - tion from this mechanism, where an injured party has been unable to bring proceedings within a period of ten years from the aforementioned dates because of the latency period for personal injury, the injured party is no longer entitled to compensation under this Directive on expiry of a period of 25 years, unless that injured party has, in the meantime, brought proceedings against an economic operator who can be held liable (Article 17 (2)). These interpretations by the First Chamber led the lower courts to refer the matter to the CJEU. In a decision dated 25 April 2024 (No 23/03137), the Rouen Court of Appeal referred to the CJEU questions relating to the distinction between fault and lack of safety, the ten-year time limit and the three-year time limit. More specifically, the questions referred to the CJEU are based on the following. • Article 13 of Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985, as interpreted in the judgment of 25 April 2002 (González Sanchez C-183/00), according to which the victim of damage may rely on other systems of contractual or non- contractual liability based on grounds other than those established by the Directive, to be interpreted as meaning that the victim of a defective product may seek compensation from the producer for his/her loss or dam - age on the basis of the general system of fault-based liability by relying in particular on the fact that the product was kept in circula - tion, on a breach of his/her duty of care with
regards to the risks presented by the product or, more generally, on a safety defect in the product. • Article 10 of Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985, which fixes as the starting point of the three-year limitation period the date on which the claimant knew or ought to have known of the damage, can be interpreted as meaning that the limitation period can only run from the date on which the full extent of the dam - age became known, in particular by fixing a date of consolidation defined as the 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 connection with the defective product, regardless of its subsequent evolu - tion. • Article 11 of Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985, according to which the rights conferred on the victim 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, contrary to the provi - sions of Article 47 of the Charter of Funda - mental 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 case has been referred to the CJEU, which is expected to rule in the coming months. On an other hand, the CJEU ruling of 19 Decem - ber 2024 ( “Ford Italia vs ZP” ), on a preliminary ruling, extends the concept of “person present- ing himself as the producer” , whose liability may be sought under the product liability regime, to the supplier of a product where that supplier has not physically affixed his/her name, its trade
90
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook