Grounds
|
|
1. This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29; ‘the Directive’).
|
1. Predlog za sprejem predhodne odločbe se nanaša na razlago Direktive Sveta št. 85/374/EGS z dne 25. julija 1985 o približevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic v zvezi z odgovornostjo za proizvode z napako (UL L 210, str. 29, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva).
|
|
2. The reference was made in the course of proceedings between Ms Mikkelsen and Mr Due Nielsen (‘the injured persons’) and Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S (‘Bilka’) and between Bilka and Skov Æg (‘Skov’) concerning compensation for the damage suffered by the injured persons as a result of eating eggs sold by Bilka and produced by Skov.
|
2. Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med go. Mikkelsen in g. Duom Nielsenom (v nadaljevanju: oškodovanca) in družbo Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S (v nadaljevanju: družba Bilka) na eni strani ter med Bilko in Skov Æg (v nadaljevanju: družba Skov) na drugi strani zaradi odškodnine za škodo, ki je oškodovancema nastala zaradi zaužitja jajc, ki jih je prodala družba Bilka, proizvedla pa družba Skov.
|
|
Legal context
|
Pravni okvir
|
|
Community legislation
|
Skupnostna ureditev
|
|
3. As the first recital in its preamble indicates, the idea behind the adoption of the Directive was that ‘approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the liability of the producer for damage caused by the defectiveness of his products is necessary because the existing divergences may distort competition and affect the movement of goods within the common market and entail a differing degree of protection of the consumer’.
|
3. Kot navaja prva uvodna izjava Direktive, je njeno sprejetje odraz prepričanja, da „je približevanje tistih zakonov držav članic v zvezi z odgovornostjo proizvajalca za škodo, ki je nastala zaradi napake na njegovih proizvodih, potrebno, zato ker utegnejo obstoječa razhajanja izkriviti konkurenco in škodovati prostemu pretoku blaga znotraj skupnega trga ter imeti za posledico različne stopnje varstva potrošnika“.
|
|
4. The second recital in the preamble shows that the system of liability established by the Directive rests on the proposition that ‘liability without fault on the part of the producer is the sole means of adequately solving the problem, peculiar to our age of increasing technicality, of a fair apportionment of the risks inherent in modern technological production’.
|
4. Kot izhaja iz druge uvodne izjave Direktive, temelji Direktivina ureditev odgovornosti na ugotovitvi, da „je odgovornost proizvajalca za brezhibnost proizvoda edini način za ustrezno rešitev tega problema, ki je značilen za naš čas hitro se razvijajoče tehnike, da bi pravično razdelili tveganje, ki je vgrajeno v sodobno tehnološko proizvodnjo“.
|
|
5. Article 1 of the Directive provides:
|
5. Člen 1 Direktive določa:
|
|
‘The producer shall be liable for damage caused by a defect in his product.’
|
„Proizvajalec je odgovoren za škodo, ki jo povzroči napaka na njegovem proizvodu“.
|
|
6. Article 3 of the Directive provides:
|
6. Člen 3 Direktive določa:
|
|
‘1. “Producer” means the manufacturer of a finished product, the producer of any raw material or the manufacturer of a component part and any person who, by putting his name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product presents himself as its producer.
|
„1. ‚Proizvajalec‘ pomeni proizvajalca dokončanih proizvodov, katere koli surovine ali sestavnega dela ali vsako osebo, ki se s svojim imenom, blagovno znamko ali drugim razlikovalnim znakom na proizvodu predstavlja kot njegov proizvajalec.
|
|
2. Without prejudice to the liability of the producer, any person who imports into the Community a product for sale, hire, leasing or any form of distribution in the course of his business shall be deemed to be a producer within the meaning of this Directive and shall be responsible as a producer.
|
2. Brez poseganja v odgovornost proizvajalca se za proizvajalca v smislu te direktive šteje tudi vsaka oseba, ki v okviru svoje poslovne dejavnosti uvaža v Skupnost proizvod za prodajo, najem, leasing ali kakršno koli obliko distribucije.
|
|
3. Where the producer of the product cannot be identified, each supplier of the product shall be treated as its producer unless he informs the injured person, within a reasonable time, of the identity of the producer or of the person who supplied him with the product. The same shall apply, in the case of an imported product, if this product does not indicate the identity of the importer referred to in paragraph 2, even if the name of the producer is indicated.’
|
3. Če proizvajalca proizvoda ni mogoče identificirati, se vsak dobavitelj proizvoda šteje za proizvajalca, razen če v razumnem času obvesti oškodovanca o identiteti proizvajalca ali osebe, ki mu je proizvod dobavila. Enako velja za uvožen proizvod, kadar na njem ni navedene identitete uvoznika v smislu odstavka 2, četudi je ime proizvajalca navedeno.“
|
|
7. As regards enforcement of the producer’s liability, Article 4 of the Directive states that ‘[t]he injured person shall be required to prove the damage, the defect and the causal relationship between defect and damage’. Article 7 lists the cases in which the producer is not liable. These include in particular where the producer did not place the product into circulation, where the defect did not exist at the time when the product was put into circulation, where the product was not manufactured for distribution, where the defect is due to compliance of the product with mandatory regulations issued by the public authorities, and where the state of knowledge at the time when the product was put into circulation was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered.
|
7. Glede vzpostavitve odgovornosti proizvajalca člen 4 Direktive navaja, da „[o]škodovanec mora dokazati škodo, napako ter vzročno zvezo med napako in škodo“. Člen 7 našteva primere, v katerih proizvajalec ni odgovoren za škodo. Med drugim gre za primere, če proizvajalec proizvoda ni dal v promet, če napaka ni obstajala, ko je bil proizvod dan v promet, če proizvod ni bil izdelan za distribucijo, če je napaka posledica skladnosti proizvoda z obveznimi prisilnimi predpisi ali če raven znanosti takrat, ko je bil proizvod dan v promet, ni bila takšna, da bi bilo mogoče napako na proizvodu odkriti.
|
|
8. As regards the relationship between the system of liability introduced by the Directive and national laws on liability, Article 13 of the Directive provides:
|
8. V zvezi z razmerjem med ureditvijo Direktive in sistemi nacionalnega prava glede odgovornosti člen 13 Direktive določa:
|
|
‘This Directive shall not affect any rights which an injured person may have according to the rules of the law of contractual or non-contractual liability or a special liability system existing at the moment when this Directive is notified.’
|
„Ta direktiva ne vpliva na pravice, ki jih lahko ima oškodovanec na podlagi predpisov o pogodbeni ali nepogodbeni odgovornosti ali na podlagi posebnega sistema odgovornosti, ki obstaja v trenutku uradnega sporočila te direktive.“
|
|
National legislation
|
Nacionalna ureditev
|
|
9. According to the information provided by the Danish Government, before the adoption of the Directive liability for defective products on the part of both the producer and the supplier was governed in Denmark by case-law. Under that case-law, liability for defective products was assessed by reference to the general rules of civil liability, based on the concept of fault. Developments in the case-law had had the result, however, that in certain cases the producer was held liable even in the absence of fault. The supplier was answerable for the liability of the economic operators further up the production and distribution chain.
|
9. Iz pojasnil danske vlade izhaja, da je bila pred sprejetjem Direktive odgovornost za proizvode z napako, tako odgovornost proizvajalca kot dobavitelja proizvoda, urejena s sodno prakso. V skladu s to se je odgovornost za proizvode z napako presojala glede na splošna pravila civilne odgovornosti, ki temeljijo na krivdnih razlogih. Razvoj sodne prakse pa naj bi pripeljal do tega, da je bila odgovornost proizvajalca vzpostavljena tudi brez krivdnih razlogov. Dobavitelj pa je odgovarjal kot tržni udeleženec, ki je višje v proizvodni in distribucijski verigi.
|
|
10. The Directive was transposed in Denmark by Law No 371 of 7 June 1989 on product liability, amended by Law No 1041 of 28 November 2000 (‘Law No 371’). The Danish Government explains that Law No 371 imposed on the producer the system of product liability laid down by the Directive, while taking over the existing case-law under which the supplier is answerable for the liability of economic operators who have successively intervened further up the chain. In other respects, the previous case-law remained applicable.
|
10. Direktiva je bila na Dansko prenesena z Zakonom št. 371 z dne 7. junija 1989 o krivdni odgovornosti za proizvode z napako, spremenjenim z Zakonom št. 1041 z dne 28. novembra 2000 (v nadaljevanju: Zakon št. 371). Danska vlada je podrobneje pojasnila, da je ta zakon na eni strani vzpostavil z Direktivo predvideno ureditev odgovornosti proizvajalca za proizvode z napako in na drugi strani uzakonil obstoječe pravilo iz sodne prakse, po katerem je dobavitelj proizvoda odgovoren kot tržni udeleženci, ki so višje v verigi. Poleg tega naj bi predhodna pravila sodne prakse ostala v veljavi.
|
|
11. Paragraph 4 of Law No 371 defines the terms ‘producer’ and ‘intermediary’ as follows:
|
11. Člen 4 Zakona št. 371 določa pojma „proizvajalec“ in „dobavitelj proizvoda“:
|
|
‘1. A person who produces a finished product, a component part or a raw material, who produces or collects a natural product, or who, by putting his name, trade mark or other distinguishing sign on the product holds himself out as its producer, shall be regarded as a producer.
|
„1. Za proizvajalca se šteje oseba, ki izdela dokončani proizvod, vmesni proizvod ali surovino, ki proizvede ali pridela naravni proizvod, in oseba, ki se s svojim imenom, blagovno znamko ali drugim razlikovalnim znakom na proizvodu predstavlja kot njegov proizvajalec.
|
|
2. A person who in the course of his business imports a product into the EC with a view to resale, hire, leasing or other form of distribution shall also be regarded as a producer.
|
2. Za proizvajalca se šteje tudi oseba, ki v okviru svoje poslovne dejavnosti uvaža v Skupnost proizvod za prodajo, najem, leasing ali kakršno koli obliko distribucije.
|
|
3. A person who in the course of business puts a product into circulation without being regarded as a producer shall be regarded as an intermediary.
|
3. Za dobavitelja proizvoda se šteje oseba, ki da v okviru svoje poslovne dejavnosti proizvod v promet, ne da bi bila proizvajalec.
|
|
…’
|
[…]“
|
|
12. Paragraph 6 of Law No 371 states the principle that the producer is liable for a defect in a product. Paragraph 10 of the law provides:
|
12. Člen 6 tega zakona vzpostavlja načelo odgovornosti proizvajalca za proizvode z napako. Člen 10 tega zakona določa:
|
|
‘An intermediary shall be directly liable for product liability to injured persons and subsequent intermediaries in the distribution chain.’
|
„Dobavitelj proizvoda za proizvode z napako odgovarja neposredno oškodovancem in dobaviteljem, ki so nižje v distribucijski verigi.“
|
|
13. Under Paragraph 11(3) of Law No 371, an intermediary who has paid compensation to an injured person for damage caused by a defective product steps into the injured person’s rights against operators higher up the production and distribution chain.
|
13. Na podlagi člena 11(3) Zakona št. 371 dobavitelj proizvoda, ki je oškodovancu povrnil škodo, nastalo zaradi proizvoda z napako, vstopi v njegove pravice do tržnega udeleženca, ki je višje na proizvodni in tržni verigi.
|
|
The main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
|
Spor o glavni stvari in vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
|
|
14. After eating eggs they had bought at a shop belonging to Bilka, which had in turn obtained them from the producer Skov, the injured persons fell ill with salmonella poisoning.
|
14. Oškodovanca sta se po zaužitju jajc, ki sta jih kupila v prodajalni družbe Bilka, ta pa jih je pridobila pri proizvajalcu družbi Skov, okužila s salmonelo.
|
|
15. They brought proceedings against the supplier Bilka, which joined the producer Skov in the proceedings.
|
15. Oškodovanca sta tožila družbo Bilko, ki je obtožila proizvajalca družbo Skov.
|
|
16. By judgment of 22 January 2002, the Aalborg Byret (Aalborg District Court) found that the eggs had been defective, there was a causal link between the defect and the damage suffered, and no fault on the part of the injured parties had been shown. Bilka was ordered to pay compensation to the injured persons, and Skov was ordered to reimburse Bilka for that compensation.
|
16. V sodbi z dne 22. januarja 2002 je Aalborg Byret menilo, da so bila jajca pokvarjena, da je obstajala vzročna zveza med to napako in nastalo škodo ter da ni bilo dokazanih nobenih krivdnih razlogov oškodovancev. Družbi Bilka je bilo naloženo plačilo odškodnine oškodovancema, družbi Skov pa je bilo naloženo vračilo plačila te odškodnine družbi Bilka.
|
|
17. Those were the circumstances in which the Vestre Landsret (Western Regional Court), on appeal by Bilka and Skov, decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
|
17. V teh okoliščinah je, zaradi pritožbe družb Bilka in Skov, Vestre Landsret odločilo, da prekine odločanje in Sodišču v predhodno odločanje predloži naslednja vprašanja:
|
|
‘1. Does [the Directive] preclude a statutory system under which an intermediary bears unlimited responsibility for the producer’s liability under the Directive?
|
„1. Ali Direktiva […] nasprotuje ureditvi, po kateri dobavitelj proizvoda neomejeno odgovarja za odgovornost proizvajalca v smislu te direktive?
|
|
2. Does the … Directive preclude a system under which the intermediary bears, in accordance with case-law, unlimited responsibility for the producer’s fault-based liability established in case-law in respect of liability for defective products resulting in personal injury or damage to consumers’ property?
|
2. Ali Direktiva […] nasprotuje ureditvi, po kateri dobavitelj proizvoda v skladu s sodno prakso za napako proizvodov, ki je potrošniku povzročila nepremoženjsko ali premoženjsko škodo, neomejeno odgovarja za krivdno odgovornost proizvajalca, kot jo določa sodna praksa?
|
|
3. With reference to:
|
3. Ali glede na:
|
|
– the [minutes of the 1025th meeting of the] Council of Ministers [of 25 July 1985], point 2 of which states:
|
– zapisnik [s 1025. zasedanja] Sveta ministrov [z dne 25. julija 1985], v katerem je v točki 2 navedeno:
|
|
“… With regard to the interpretation of Articles [3] and [13], the Council and the Commission are in agreement that there is nothing to prevent individual Member States from laying down in their national legislation rules regarding liability for intermediaries, since intermediary liability is not covered by the Directive. There is further agreement that under the Directive the Member States may determine rules on the final mutual apportionment of liability among several liable producers (see Article 3) and intermediaries;”
|
‚glede razlage členov 3 in 1[3] Svet in Komisija soglasno ugotavljata, da državi članici nič ne preprečuje, da bi v svojih nacionalnih predpisih določila pravila o odgovornosti posrednikov, saj odgovornost teh ni določena z Direktivo. Prav tako obstaja soglasje glede dejstva, da lahko države članice v skladu z Direktivo določijo pravila o končni medsebojni porazdelitvi odgovornosti med več odgovornimi proizvajalci (glej člen 3) in posredniki‘,
|
|
– Article 13 of the Directive …,
|
– člen 13 Direktive […]
|
|
does the Directive preclude a Member State from regulating by statute the intermediary’s liability for defective products, provided that the intermediary is defined, as was done in [Paragraph 4(3)] of [Law No 371], as a person who in the course of business puts a product into circulation without being regarded as a producer under the definitions in Article 3 of the Directive?
|
Direktiva nasprotuje temu, da država članica z zakonskimi predpisi uredi odgovornost dobavitelja za proizvode z napako, če je dobavitelj, tako kot v členu [4](3), prvi stavek, Zakona [št. 371], opredeljen kot oseba, ki da v okviru svoje poslovne dejavnosti proizvod v promet, ne da bi bila proizvajalec v smislu člena 3 Direktive o odgovornosti za proizvode z napako?
|
|
4. Does the Directive … preclude a Member State from introducing a statutory rule on liability for defective products under which the intermediary – without himself being a producer or treated as a producer under Article 3 of the Directive – is responsible for:
|
4. Ali Direktiva […] nasprotuje temu, da država članica sprejme zakonsko določilo o odgovornosti za proizvode z napako, na podlagi katere dobavitelj – ne da bi bil pri tem sam proizvajalec ali v skladu s členom 3 Direktive izenačen s proizvajalcem – odgovarja za:
|
|
– the producer’s liability for defective products under the Directive,
|
– odgovornost proizvajalca v smislu Direktive;
|
|
– the producer’s fault-based liability established in case-law in respect of liability for defective products resulting in personal injury or damage to consumers’ property?
|
– za krivdno odgovornost proizvajalca, kot jo določa sodna praksa, za napako proizvodov, ki je potrošniku povzročila nepremoženjsko ali premoženjsko škodo?
|
|
The statutory rule in question presumes that:
|
Obravnavano zakonsko določilo zahteva, da:
|
|
(a) the intermediary is defined as a person who in the course of business puts a product into circulation without being regarded as a producer ([Paragraph 4(3)] of [Law No 371]);
|
a) se za dobavitelja šteje oseba, ki da v okviru svoje poslovne dejavnosti proizvod v promet, ne da bi bila proizvajalec (člen [4](3), prvi stavek, Zakona [št. 371]);
|
|
(b) the producer can be held liable, and the intermediary therefore does not bear responsibility where this is not the case (Paragraph 10 of [Law No 371]);
|
b) proizvajalec lahko odgovarja in da dobavitelj torej ne odgovarja, če proizvajalec ni odgovoren (člen 10 Zakona [št. 371]);
|
|
(c) the intermediary has a right of recourse against the producer (Paragraph 11(3) of [Law No 371]).
|
c) ima dobavitelj regresni zahtevek zoper proizvajalca (člen 11(3) Zakona [št. 371]).
|
|
5. Does the Directive … preclude a Member State from maintaining a non-statutory but case-law-based rule, which existed before the Directive, relating to liability for defective products under which the intermediary – without himself being a producer or regarded as a producer under Article 3 of the Directive – is responsible for:
|
5. Ali Direktiva […] nasprotuje temu, da država članica ohrani pravilo, ki ni zakonsko, ampak izhaja iz sodne prakse in ki je veljalo pred Direktivo, v skladu s katerim dobavitelj – ne da bi bil pri tem sam proizvajalec ali v skladu s členom 3 Direktive izenačen s proizvajalcem – odgovarja za:
|
|
– the producer’s liability for defective products under the Directive,
|
– odgovornost proizvajalca v smislu Direktive;
|
|
– the producer’s fault-based liability established in case-law in respect of liability for defective products resulting in personal injury or damage to consumers’ property?
|
– za krivdno odgovornost proizvajalca, kot jo določa sodna praksa, za napako proizvodov, ki je potrošniku povzročila nepremoženjsko ali premoženjsko škodo?
|
|
The case-law-based rule in question presumes that:
|
Obravnavano pravilo sodne prakse zahteva, da:
|
|
(a) the intermediary is defined as a person who in the course of business puts a product into circulation without being regarded as the producer ([Paragraph 4(3)] of [Law No 371];
|
a) se za dobavitelja šteje oseba, ki da v okviru svoje poslovne dejavnosti proizvod v promet, ne da bi bila proizvajalec (člen [4](3), prvi stavek, Zakona [št. 371]);
|
|
(b) the producer can be held liable and the intermediary therefore does not bear responsibility where the producer is not held liable (Paragraph 10 of [Law No 371]);
|
b) proizvajalec lahko odgovarja in da dobavitelj torej ne odgovarja, če proizvajalec ni odgovoren (člen 10 Zakona [št. 371]);
|
|
(c) the intermediary has a right of recourse against the producer (Paragraph 11(3) of [Law No 371].’
|
c) ima dobavitelj regresni zahtevek zoper proizvajalca (člen 11(3) Zakona [št. 371]).“
|
|
The questions
|
Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
|
|
18. By its questions, which should be examined together, the national court essentially asks whether the Directive precludes a Member State from regulating the liability of the supplier by laying down that he is to be answerable for the liability of the producer.
|
18. Predložitveno sodišče z vprašanji, ki jih je treba obravnavati skupaj, v bistvu sprašuje, ali Direktiva nasprotuje temu, da država članica ured i odgovornost dobavitelja tako, da ta odgovarja za odgovornost proizvajalca.
|
|
19. In this connection, it should be noted that the liability introduced by the Directive and imposed on the producer by Article 1 is a no-fault liability. That is expressly stated in the second recital in the preamble to the Directive, and is also apparent from the enumeration in Article 4 of the Directive of the matters to be proved by the injured person and from the cases referred to in Article 7 in which the producer’s liability is excluded.
|
19. V tem okviru je treba opomniti, da je odgovornost proizvajalca, ki jo določa člen 1 Direktive, objektivna odgovornost. To izrecno navaja druga uvodna izjava Direktive. To izhaja tudi iz naštevanja elementov, ki jih mora dokazati oškodovanec, iz člena 4 omenjene direktive in iz primerov iz člena 7, v katerih je odgovornost proizvajalca izključena.
|
|
20. The national court asks whether the Directive precludes, first, a national rule transferring to the supplier the no-fault liability which the Directive introduces and imposes on the producer and, second, a national rule transferring to the supplier the producer’s fault-based liability.
|
20. Predložitveno sodišče sprašuje, ali Direktiva nasprotuje nacionalnemu pravilu, ki na dobavitelja prenaša objektivno odgovornost, ki jo Direktiva vzpostavlja in nalaga proizvajalcu, in nacionalnemu pravilu, ki na dobavitelja prenaša krivdno odgovornost proizvajalca.
|
|
21. To answer those questions, the extent of the harmonisation brought about by the Directive must first be determined.
|
21. Da bi se lahko odgovorilo na ta vprašanja, je treba najprej določiti obseg uskladitve, ki jo uvaja Direktiva.
|
|
Extent of the harmonisation brought about by the Directive
|
Obseg uskladitve, ki jo uvaja Direktiva
|
|
22. In Case C‑52/00 Commission v France [2002] ECR I‑3827, paragraph 16, Case C‑154/00 Commission v Greece [2002] ECR I‑3879, paragraph 12, and Case C‑183/00 González Sánchez [2002] ECR I‑3901, paragraph 25, the Court held that the margin of discretion available to the Member States to make provision for product liability is entirely determined by the Directive itself and must be inferred from its wording, purpose and structure.
|
22. Sodišče je v sodbah z dne 25. aprila 2002 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji (C‑52/00, Recueil, str. I-3827, točka 16), v zadevi Komisija proti Grčiji (C‑154/00, Recueil, str. I-3879, točka 12) in v zadevi González Sánchez (C‑183/00, Recueil, str. I-3901, točka 25) presodilo, da je pooblastilo za odločanje po prostem preudarku, ki ga imajo države članice za urejanje odgovornosti za proizvode z napako, v celoti določeno s samo Direktivo in ga je treba izluščiti iz njenega besedila, cilja in zgradbe.
|
|
23. The Court considered those criteria and concluded that the Directive seeks to achieve, in the matters regulated by it, complete harmonisation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States ( Commission v France , paragraph 24, and Commission v Greece , paragraph 20).
|
23. Po preučitvi teh meril je Sodišče presodilo, da je cilj Direktive glede vprašanj, ki jih ureja, doseči popolno uskladitev zakonskih in drugih predpisov držav članic (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Franciji, točka 24, in Komisija proti Grčiji, točka 20).
|
|
24. In the context of the present proceedings, the injured persons and the Danish Government submit that the Directive does not operate a complete harmonisation of liability for defective products but only of the producer’s liability for defective products. Relying on the wording of Articles 1 and 3 of the Directive, they argue that it does not regulate the supplier’s liability and leaves the Member States a margin of discretion as regards the definition of the class of persons liable.
|
24. V tem postopku oškodovanca in danska vlada zatrjujejo, da Direktiva ne izvaja popolne uskladitve odgovornosti za proizvode z napako, ampak samo odgovornost proizvajalca za proizvode z napako. Opirajo se na besedilo členov 1 in 3 Direktive in navajajo, da zadnji ne ureja odgovornosti dobavitelja in da državam članicam pušča pooblastilo za odločanje po prostem preudarku glede opredelitve kroga odgovornih oseb.
|
|
25. Article 1 of the Directive lays down liability for damage caused by a defect in a product and imposes that liability on the producer of the product in question.
|
25. Člen 1 Direktive določa odgovornost za škodo, ki jo povzroči napaka na proizvodu, in to odgovornost nalaga proizvajalcu tega proizvoda.
|
|
26. The terms ‘damage’, ‘defective’ and ‘product’ are defined in Articles 9, 6 and 2 of the Directive respectively. The term ‘producer’ is defined in Article 3 of the Directive. Under Article 3(1), it denotes the manufacturer of the product. Article 3(2) includes under ‘producer’ the importer of the product into the Community. Under Article 3(3), if the producer cannot be identified, the supplier is treated as the producer unless he informs the injured person within a reasonable time of the identity of his own supplier.
|
26. Pojme „škoda“, „napaka“ in „proizvod“ opredeljujejo členi 9, 6 in 2 Direktive. Pojem „proizvajalec“ opredeljuje člen 3 Direktive. V skladu z odstavkom 1 tega člena je to proizvajalec proizvoda. Odstavek 2 tega člena v pojem „proizvajalca“ vključuje uvoznika proizvoda v Skupnost. V skladu s členom 3(3) Direktive se, če proizvajalca proizvoda ni mogoče identificirati, vsak dobavitelj proizvoda šteje za proizvajalca, razen če v razumnem času obvesti oškodovanca o identiteti osebe, ki mu je proizvod dobavila.
|
|
27. The reasons why it appeared appropriate to hold the producer liable are explained in Article 1(e) of the statement of reasons in the proposal for a directive (document COM(76) 372 final; OJ 1976 C 241, p. 9), to which the Danish Government refers. Those reasons, which refer to Articles 1 and 2 of the proposal, which without substantive changes became Articles 1 and 3 of the Directive, may be summarised as follows.
|
27. Razlogi, zakaj je bilo primerno ohraniti odgovornost proizvajalca, so pojasnjeni v členu 1(e) obrazložitvenega memoranduma predloga Direktive (dokument COM (76) 372 končni (UL C 241, str. 9)), na katerega se je sklicevala danska vlada. Te razloge, ki se nanašajo na člena 1 in 2 omenjenega predloga, ki sta brez vsebinskih sprememb postala člena 1 in 3 Direktive, je mogoče povzeti, kot sledi v nadaljevanju.
|
|
28. While acknowledging that the possibility of holding the supplier of a defective product liable in accordance with the provisions of the Directive would make it simpler for an injured person to bring proceedings, there would – it was observed – be a high price to pay for that simplicity, inasmuch as, by obliging all suppliers to insure against such liability, it would result in products becoming significantly more expensive. Moreover, it would lead to a multiplicity of actions, with the supplier seeking recourse in turn against his own supplier, back up the chain as far as the producer. Since, in the great majority of cases, the supplier does no more than sell the product in the state in which he bought it and only the producer is able to influence its quality, it was thought appropriate to concentrate liability for defective products on the producer.
|
28. Čeprav je treba priznati, da bi možnost vzpostavitve odgovornosti dobavitelja za proizvod z napako v skladu s podrobnimi pravili iz Direktive olajšala sodne postopke, ki bi jih sprožili oškodovanci, bi ta možnost imela hude posledice, saj bi to, da bi se bili vsi dobavitelji prisiljeni zavarovati proti takšni odgovornosti, občutno podražilo proizvode. Poleg tega bi taka možnost pripeljala do podvajanja tožb, saj bi dobavitelj tožil svojega dobavitelja in tako vse do proizvajalca. Ker se v večini primerov dobavitelj omeji na prodajo proizvoda, kakršnega je sam kupil, in ker ima samo proizvajalec možnost vplivati na kakovost proizvoda, je primerno, da se odgovornost za proizvod z napako veže na proizvajalca.
|
|
29. It follows that it was after weighing up the parts played by the various economic operators involved in the production and distribution chain that the choice was made to allocate liability for damage caused by defective products in principle to producers, and only in certain defined cases to importers and suppliers, in the legal system established by the Directive.
|
29. Iz navedenega izhaja, da je po pretehtanju vlog različnih tržnih udeležencev, ki sodelujejo v proizvodni in tržni verigi, prevladala odločitev, da se v pravni ureditvi, ki jo vzpostavlja Direktiva, odgovornost za škodo, nastalo zaradi proizvodov z napako, naloži načeloma proizvajalcu in samo v nekaterih omejenih primerih uvozniku ali dobavitelju.
|
|
30. Contrary to the view put forward by the injured persons and the Danish Government, Articles 1 and 3 of the Directive are not thus confined to regulating the liability of the producer of a defective product, but determine which of the operators who have taken part in the manufacture and marketing processes will have to assume the liability established by the Directive.
|
30. V nasprotju s trditvami oškodovancev in danske vlade se člena 1 in 3 Direktive torej ne omejujeta na ureditev odgovornosti proizvajalca proizvoda z napako, ampak med poklicnimi subjekti, ki so sodelovali v postopku proizvodnje in trženja, določata tistega, ki bo moral prevzeti odgovornost, ki jo vzpostavlja Direktiva.
|
|
Transfer to the supplier of the producer’s no-fault liability under the Directive
|
Prenos objektivne odgovornosti proizvajalca na podlagi Direktive na dobavitelja
|
|
31. By its first group of questions, the national court asks whether the Directive is to be interpreted as precluding a national rule under which the supplier is answerable without restriction for the no-fault liability which the Directive establishes and imposes on the producer.
|
31. Predložitveno sodišče s prvim sklopom vprašanj sprašuje, ali je treba Direktivo razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalnemu pravilu, po katerem dobavitelj proizvoda neomejeno odgovarja za objektivno odgovornost, ki jo Direktiva vzpostavlja in nalaga proizvajalcu.
|
|
32. On this point, it must be observed that the class of persons liable against whom an injured person is entitled to bring an action under the system of liability laid down by the Directive is defined in Articles 1 and 3 of the Directive (see paragraphs 29 and 30 above).
|
32. V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, da krog odgovornih oseb, proti katerim ima oškodovanec pravico vložiti tožbo na podlagi ureditve odgovornosti iz Direktive, določata njena člena 1 in 3 (glej točki 29 in 30 te sodbe).
|
|
33. Since the Directive, as pointed out in paragraph 23 above, seeks to achieve complete harmonisation in the matters regulated by it, its determination in Articles 1 and 3 of the class of persons liable must be regarded as exhaustive.
|
33. Ker je cilj Direktive, kot je bilo navedeno v točki 23 te sodbe, doseči popolno uskladitev glede vprašanj, ki jih ureja, je seznam odgovornih oseb iz členov 1 in 3 Direktive treba šteti za izčrpnega.
|
|
34. Article 3(3) of the Directive provides for the supplier to be liable only in the case where the producer cannot be identified. By laying down in Paragraph 10 of Law No 371 that the supplier is to be answerable directly to injured persons for defects in a product, the Danish legislature therefore extended the class of persons liable against whom the injured person is entitled to bring proceedings under the system of liability laid down by the Directive beyond the limits fixed by the Directive.
|
34. Člen 3(3) Direktive določa odgovornost dobavitelja, samo če proizvajalca proizvoda ni mogoče identificirati. S tem, ko je v členu 10 Zakona št. 371 določil, da dobavitelj proizvoda za proizvode z napako odgovarja neposredno oškodovancem, je danski zakonodajalec torej krog odgovornih oseb, proti katerim ima oškodovanec pravico vložiti tožbo na podlagi ureditve odgovornosti iz Direktive, razširil čez meje, ki jih je določila Direktiva.
|
|
35. The Danish Government submits that the national legislation does not impose an autonomous liability on the supplier, because he is liable to the injured persons only to the extent that the producer, against whom he has a right of recourse, may be liable. It argues that the position of the supplier is thus similar to that of a surety with joint and several liability.
|
35. Danska vlada je navedla, da nacionalna zakonodaja dobavitelju ne nalaga samostojne odgovornosti, saj ta proti oškodovancem odgovarja le, če je lahko odgovoren proizvajalec, proti kateremu ima regresni zahtevek. Položaj dobavitelja naj bi bil tako podoben solidarnemu poroštvu.
|
|
36. That factor is not decisive. Beside the fact that the system established by the national legislation imposes on the supplier a burden considered by the Community legislature to be unjustified (see paragraph 28 above), it entails a multiplicity of actions, which is precisely what the direct action against the producer available to the injured person under the conditions laid down in Article 3 of the Directive is intended to avoid (see Commission v France , paragraph 40, and paragraph 28 above).
|
36. Ta element ni odločilen. Čeprav ureditev iz nacionalne zakonodaje dobavitelju nalaga odgovornost, ki je po mnenju zakonodajalca Skupnosti neutemeljena (glej točko 28 te sodbe), je njena posledica množitev izpodbijanj, ravno to, kar direktna tožba, ki jo ima pod pogoji iz člena 3 te direktive proti proizvajalcu oškodovanec, želi preprečiti (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Franciji, točka 40, in točko 28 te sodbe).
|
|
37. It follows that the Directive must be interpreted as precluding a national rule under which the supplier is answerable without restriction for the liability of the producer under the Directive.
|
37. Iz navedenega izhaja, da je Direktivo treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalnemu pravilu, po katerem dobavitelj proizvoda neomejeno odgovarja za odgovornost proizvajalca iz Direktive.
|
|
38. However, the Danish Government submits that Article 13 of the Directive, which provides that the Directive is not to affect any rights which an injured person may have according to the rules of the law of contractual or non-contractual liability, can provide a legal basis for extending to the supplier the liability which, in the system of the Directive, falls on the producer.
|
38. Vendar danska vlada zatrjuje, da bi člen 13 Direktive, po katerem Direktiva ne vpliva na pravice, ki jih lahko ima oškodovanec na podlagi predpisov o pogodbeni ali nepogodbeni odgovornosti, lahko bil zakonska podlaga za razširitev odgovornosti, ki je z ureditvijo v Direktivi vzpostavljena za proizvajalca, na dobavitelja.
|
|
39. On this point, it should be recalled that in Commission v France , paragraph 21, Commission v Greece , paragraph 17, and González Sánchez , paragraph 30, the Court held, after analysing the wording, purpose and structure of the Directive, that Article 13 could not be interpreted as leaving it open to the Member States to maintain a general system of product liability different from that provided for in the Directive.
|
39. V zvezi s tem je treba opomniti, da je Sodišče v zgoraj navedenih sodbah Komisija proti Franciji (točka 21), v zadevi Komisija proti Grčiji (točka 17) in v zadevi González Sánchez (točka 30) po preučitvi besedila, cilja in zgradbe Direktive presodilo, da se njenega člena 13 ne sme razlagati tako, da državam članicam pušča možnost ohranitve splošne ureditve odgovornosti za proizvode z napako, ki bi bila drugačna od ureditve omenjene direktive.
|
|
40. The Danish Government wants that case-law to be reconsidered in the light of the statement on Articles 3 and 13 in point 2 of the minutes of the meeting of the Council of Ministers of 25 July 1985, according to which those articles do not prevent each Member State from laying down in its national legislation rules regarding liability for intermediaries.
|
40. Danska vlada želi, da bi se to sodno prakso ponovno preučilo v smislu izjave o členih 3 in 1[3] iz točke 2 zgoraj navedenega zapisnika z zasedanja Sveta ministrov z dne 25. julija 1985, v skladu s katero ta člena ne nasprotujeta temu, da vsaka država članica v svoji nacionalni zakonodaji določi pravila o odgovornosti posrednikov.
|
|
41. To defend maintaining the national rule that the supplier is answerable for the liability of the producer, which was developed by the case-law before the Directive entered into force and was merely confirmed by the law transposing the Directive, the Danish Government also relies on the statement in point 16 of those minutes, in which the Council expressed ‘the wish that Member States which currently apply provisions relating to consumer protection which are more favourable than those under the Directive [might] not rely on the options afforded by the Directive to reduce that level of protection’.
|
41. V zagovor ohranitve nacionalnega pravila, po katerem dobavitelj odgovarja za odgovornost proizvajalca, ki ga je razvila sodna praksa pred začetkom veljavnosti Direktive in ki ga je zakon o prenosu Direktive zgolj potrdil, danska vlada navaja tudi izjavo iz točke 16 omenjenega zapisnika, kjer je Svet izrazil „željo, da države članice, ki trenutno uporabljajo določbe, ki so varstvu potrošnikov bolj naklonjene kot določbe Direktive, ne bodo izkoristile možnosti, ki jih ponuja Direktiva za znižanja ravni tega varstva.“
|
|
42. On this point, first, it must be recalled that, where a statement recorded in Council minutes is not referred to in the wording of a provision of secondary legislation, it cannot be used for the purpose of interpreting that provision (see, in particular, Case C‑292/89 Antonissen [1991] ECR I‑745, paragraph 18, and Case C‑375/98 Epson Europe [2000] ECR I‑4243, paragraph 26).
|
42. V zvezi s tem je treba najprej opomniti, da se izjave iz zapisnika Sveta, če ni povzeta v besedilo določbe sekundarne zakonodaje, ne sme navajati za razlago omenjene določbe (glej med drugim sodbi z dne 26. februarja 1991 v zadevi Antonissen, C-292/89, Recueil, str. I-745, točka 18, in z dne 8. junija 2000 v zadevi Epson Europe, C-375/98, Recueil, str. I-4243, točka 26).
|
|
43. Second, the two statements referred to by the Danish Government cannot justify altering, in contradiction of the wording and structure of the measure, the class of persons liable defined by the Directive. In particular, they cannot be relied on to allow the Member States to transfer to the supplier, beyond the cases listed exhaustively in Article 3(3), the burden of the liability established by the Directive and imposed by it on the producer.
|
43. Dalje, izjavi, na kateri se sklicuje danska vlada, ne moreta upravičevati, v nasprotju z besedilom in zgradbo besedila, spremembe kroga odgovornih oseb, ki ga določa Direktiva. Predvsem se nanju ne more sklicevati, da bi se državam članicam dopustil prenos odgovornosti, ki jo Direktiva vzpostavlja in nalaga proizvajalcu, na dobavitelja zunaj omejitev iz člena 3(3).
|
|
44. As regards the Danish Government’s argument that that interpretation of the Directive is liable to lower the level of consumer protection in Denmark, it must be stated that any extension to suppliers of the liability established by the Directive falls within the competence of the Community legislature, for whom it is to amend, if appropriate, the provisions concerned.
|
44. Glede trditve danske vlade, da je posledica take razlage Direktive na Danskem znižanje ravni varstva potrošnikov, je treba poudariti, da je morebitna raztegnitev odgovornosti, ki jo vzpostavlja Direktiva, na dobavitelje v pristojnosti zakonodajalca Skupnosti, ki po potrebi spremeni obravnavane določbe.
|
|
45. In those circumstances, the answer to the national court’s first group of questions must be that the Directive must be interpreted as precluding a national rule under which the supplier is answerable, beyond the cases listed exhaustively in Article 3(3) of the Directive, for the no-fault liability which the Directive establishes and imposes on the producer.
|
45. V teh okoliščinah je na prvi sklop vprašanj predložitvenega sodišča treba odgovoriti, da je Direktivo treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalnemu pravilu, po katerem ima dobavitelj, razen v taksativno naštetih primerih iz njenega člena 3(3), objektivno odgovornost, ki jo Direktiva vzpostavlja in nalaga proizvajalcu.
|
|
Transfer to the supplier of the producer’s fault-based liability
|
Prenos krivdne odgovornosti proizvajalca na dobavitelja
|
|
46. By its second group of questions, the national court essentially asks whether the Directive precludes a national rule under which the supplier is answerable without restriction for the fault-based liability of the producer where damage is caused by a defective product.
|
46. Predložitveno sodišče z drugim sklopom vprašanj v bistvu sprašuje, ali Direktiva nasprotuje nacionalnemu pravilu, po katerem dobavitelj za škodo, ki jo povzroči napaka proizvoda, neomejeno odgovarja za krivdno odgovornost proizvajalca.
|
|
47. On this point, it must be recalled that in Commission v France , paragraph 22, Commission v Greece , paragraph 18, and González Sánchez , paragraph 31, the Court held that Article 13 of the Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the system of rules put in place by the Directive does not preclude the application of other systems of contractual or non-contractual liability based on other grounds, such as fault or a warranty in respect of latent defects.
|
47. V zvezi s tem je treba opomniti, da je v zgoraj navedenih sodbah Komisija proti Franciji (točka 22), Komisija proti Grčiji (točka 18) in González Sánchez (točka 31) Sodišče presodilo, da je treba člen 13 razlagati tako, da ureditev iz Direktive ne izključuje uporabe drugih ureditev pogodbene ali nepogodbene odgovornosti, če te temeljijo na različnih podlagah, kot na primer na garanciji za skrite napake ali na krivdi.
|
|
48. In those circumstances, the answer to the national court’s second group of questions must be that the Directive must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule under which the supplier is answerable without restriction for the producer’s fault-based liability.
|
48. V teh okoliščinah je na drugi sklop vprašanj predložitvenega sodišča treba odgovoriti, da je Direktivo treba razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje nacionalnemu pravilu, po katerem dobavitelj neomejeno odgovarja za krivdno odgovornost proizvajalca.
|
|
Limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment
|
Omejitev časovnih učinkov sodbe
|
|
49. In the event that the Court did not accept their interpretation of the Directive, the injured persons and the Danish Government asked the Court to limit the temporal effects of its judgment. In support of their request, they relied in particular on the serious consequences for legal certainty and the financial implications which the judgment could entail for injured persons in a large number of actions relating to product liability which have been decided since the entry into force of the Directive.
|
49. Oškodovanca in danska vlada so Sodišču predlagali, naj v primeru, da ne bo sprejelo njihove razlage Direktive, omeji časovne učinke svoje sodbe. V podporo svojemu predlogu so med drugim navedli hude posledice za pravno varnost in finančni vpliv, ki bi jih sodba lahko imela za oškodovance v veliko sporih o odgovornosti za proizvode z napako, rešenih po začetku veljavnosti Direktive.
|
|
50. According to settled case-law, the interpretation which the Court, in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by Article 234 EC, gives to a rule of Community law clarifies and where necessary defines the meaning and scope of that rule as it must be, or ought to have been, understood and applied from the time of its coming into force. It follows that the rule as thus interpreted can, and must, be applied by the courts even to legal relationships arising and established before the judgment ruling on the request for interpretation, provided that in other respects the conditions for bringing before the courts having jurisdiction an action relating to the application of that rule are satisfied (see, inter alia, Case 24/86 Blaizot [1988] ECR 379, paragraph 27, and Case C‑415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I‑4921, paragraph 141).
|
50. V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso razlaga posameznega pravila prava Skupnosti, ki jo Sodišče poda pri izvrševanju pristojnosti na podlagi člena 234 ES, po potrebi pojasnjuje in natančneje določa pomen in obseg tega pravila, tako kot bi se moralo razumeti in uporabljati od začetka njegove veljave. Iz tega izhaja, da sodnik pravilo, za katerega je veljala taka razlaga, lahko in mora uporabiti tudi za pravna razmerja, nastala in oblikovana, preden je Sodišče odločilo o predlogu za sprejem predhodne odločbe, če so tudi sicer izpolnjeni pogoji za predložitev spora o uporabi omenjenega pravila pristojnemu sodišču (glej zlasti sodbe z dne 2. februarja 1988 v zadevi Blaizot, 24/86, Recueil, str. 379, točka 27, in z dne 15. decembra 1995 v zadevi Bosman, C-415/93, Recueil, str. I-4921, točka 141).
|
|
51. It is only exceptionally that the Court may, in application of the general principle of legal certainty inherent in the Community legal order, be moved to restrict for any person concerned the opportunity of relying on a provision which it has interpreted with a view to calling in question legal relationships established in good faith. Two essential criteria must be fulfilled before such a limitation can be imposed, namely that those concerned should have acted in good faith and that there should be a risk of serious difficulties (see, inter alia, Case C‑57/93 Vroege [1994] ECR I‑4541, paragraph 21, and Case C‑372/98 Cooke [2000] ECR I‑8683, paragraph 42).
|
51. V zvezi s tem je treba opomniti, da sme Sodišče le izjemoma z uporabo splošnega načela pravne varnosti, ki je bistven del pravnega reda Skupnosti, omejiti možnost vseh zainteresiranih, da bi se sklicevali na določbo, ki jo je samo razložilo, z namenom izpodbijanja pravnih razmerij, ki so nastala v dobri veri. Za določitev take omejitve morata biti izpolnjena dva bistvena pogoja, in sicer dobra vera zainteresiranih in nevarnost resnih motenj (glej zlasti sodbi z dne 28. septembra 1994 v zadevi Vroege, C-57/93, Recueil, str. I-4541, točka 21, in z dne 12. oktobra 2000 v zadevi Cooke, C-372/98, Recueil, str. I-8683, točka 42).
|
|
52. It should be noted that in Paragraph 11(3) of Law No 371 the Danish legislature made use of the mechanism of the right of recourse familiar to most legal systems, and laid down that a supplier who has compensated an injured person for damage caused by a defective product steps into his rights against the producer. Consequently, a supplier who is held liable as against the injured person can generally be indemnified by the producer under conditions which ensure legal certainty.
|
52. Vendar je treba navesti, da je danski zakonodajalec v členu 11(3) Zakona št. 371 uporabil mehanizem regresne tožbe, ki ga pozna večina pravnih sistemov, in predvidel, da dobavitelj proizvoda, ki je oškodovancu povrnil škodo, nastalo zaradi proizvoda z napako, vstopi v njegove pravice.
|
|
53. In those circumstances, without there being any need to consider whether or not a supplier could be able to bring proceedings against an injured person previously awarded compensation or to examine whether those concerned acted in good faith, the request of the injured parties and the Danish Government should not be acceded to, as they have not put forward any other factors capable of supporting their argument that the present judgment could entail serious difficulties if its temporal effects were not limited.
|
53. V teh okoliščinah, ne da bi bilo pri tem treba preučiti vprašanje, ali bi dobavitelj lahko bil upravičen do tožbe proti oškodovancu, ki mu je bila že predhodno poravnana škoda, niti da bi se bilo treba spraševati o dobri veri zainteresiranih, ni mogoče ugoditi predlogu oškodovancev in danske vlade, ki niso predložili nobenega drugega elementa, ki bi lahko podprl njihove trditve, da bi ta sodba, če njeni časovni učinki ne bi bili omejeni, povzročila resne motnje.
|
|
Costs
|
Stroški
|
|
54. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
|
54. Ker je ta postopek za stranke v postopku v glavni stvari ena od stopenj v postopku pred predložitvenim sodiščem, to odloči o stroških. Stroški, priglašeni za predložitev stališč Sodišču, ki niso stroški omenjenih strank, se ne povrnejo.
|