Brussels, 13/01/2000 (Agence Europe) - The European Commission has decided to take before the Court of Justice its differences with France and Greece over the transposition into national law by these countries of the European directive relating to liability for faulty products. As we know, it is a question of the producer's civil liability for a good in the case of damage caused by the product (Directive 85/374/EEC).
It should be stressed that, in the case of France, this is a matter that is the subject of proceedings under former Article 171 (currently Art.228) of the Treaty, which provides for fines or constraints on Member States which do not comply with a ruling by the Court of Justice. The Commission had called on the Court to impose an obligation on France, which had not transposed the directive despite an earlier ruling by the Court. Before the latter's decision on the obligation, France proceeded to transposition of the directive into national law (in May 1998). However, after examination, the Commission services concluded that transposition was neither complete nor correct - which is why the appeal was made.
As far as Greece is concerned, the Commission does not reproach the transposition into national law with granting insufficient consumer protection, but rather the contrary. Greece did not adopt the franchise of EUR 500, which allows producers to avoid liability (without fail) in the event of minor damage.
A note from the spokesman's service describes the "shortcomings of transposition" attacked by the Commission in the following way:
- France. The Commission considers that the French law for transposition of the directive is not conform on three points:
- Liability covered: France applies the rules of the directive to commercial goods and to damage of less than EUR 500, which is not in conformity with the current text of the directive.
- Supplier's liability: According to French law, all suppliers are responsible, without fail, for damage caused by the product supplied, as is the producer, even if the supplier is entitled to call for a producer guarantee. The directive is based on producer liability and, exceptionally, on supplier liability (when victims have not received concrete information on the part of the supplier allowing them to identify the producer, they may take or cite the supplier in court as holding civil liability). The Commission challenges conformity of the responsibility of the supplier under French law with the directive.
- Non-application of the exemption clauses in the case of lack of preventive measures. According to French law, a producer cannot use exemption of liability in the event of "development risks" and "conform to imperative rules" unless he has taken the preventive measures necessary for avoiding damage, as soon as he knows that the product is faulty and before damage is caused. The current text of the directive does not make exemptions contingent upon taking preventive measures.
- Greece. In 1994, Greece abolished in its law the franchise set out under the directive. This implies that the producers are also liable without fail for harm coming below the franchise. The Commission considers that this is not conform to the text of the directive, which does not allow exemption or possibility for changing the current franchise by Member States in a unilateral manner, not even for economic reasons (for example, pricing).
