Case C‑157/23

Ford Italia SpA

v

ZP and Others

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione)

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 December 2024

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Liability for defective products – Directive 85/374/EEC – Article 3(1) – Concept of ‘producer’ – Concept of a ‘person who … presents him[- or her]self as … [a] producer’ – Conditions – Supplier whose name is the same in part as that of the producer and as the trade mark put on the product by the producer)

Approximation of laws – Liability for defective products – Directive 85/374 – Concept of producer – Person presenting him- or herself as a producer – Supplier of a defective product who has not put his or her name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on that product – Name of the supplier or a distinctive element thereof being the same as that of the producer and as the trade mark put on the product by the producer – Included

(Council Directive 85/374, Arts 1 and 3(1))

(see paragraphs 31-37, 39-48, operative part)

Résumé

Hearing a request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy), the Court of Justice rules on the interpretation of the concept of ‘producer’ and more specifically on that of ‘person who … presents him[- or her]self as … [a] producer’ within the meaning of Directive 85/374. ( 1 ) Thus, it considers that the latter concept covers the supplier of a vehicle where that supplier has not physically put his or her name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product, but the mark of the vehicle put on it by the producer is the same, on the one hand, as the name of the supplier or a distinctive element thereof and, on the other hand, as the name of the producer. He or she is therefore liable for defects in the vehicle.

On 4 July 2001, ZP purchased a Ford motor vehicle (‘the vehicle in question’) from Stracciari SpA, a dealer for that make established in Italy. The vehicle in question, produced by Ford WAG, a company established in Germany, was supplied to Stracciari through Ford Italia, which distributes in Italy vehicles produced by Ford WAG.

On 27 December 2001, ZP was involved in a road traffic accident in the course of which an airbag fitted to the vehicle in question failed to work.

On 8 January 2004, ZP brought an action before the Tribunale di Bologna (District Court, Bologna, Italy) against Stracciari and Ford Italia, seeking an order that they pay compensation for the damage which ZP claimed to have suffered as a result of the defect in the vehicle in question. That court held Ford Italia to be non-contractually liable on account of the manufacturing defect in the airbag fitted to the vehicle in question.

Ford Italia’s appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Corte d’appello di Bologna (Court of Appeal, Bologna), which upheld Ford Italia’s liability in the same way as that of the producer.

Ford Italia brought an appeal on a point of law against that judgment before the referring court, criticising the solution adopted by that court in a comparable case, in which Ford WAG’s liability, as a producer, had been extended to Ford Italia.

The referring court is uncertain as to the exact scope of the expression ‘by putting his [or her] name’ referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 85/374. In essence, it asks whether the extension of the producer’s liability to the supplier is thus limited to cases in which the supplier physically puts his or her name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product, with the intention of confusing the supplier’s identity with that of the producer, or whether that extension also applies where there is a mere coincidence in the identifying details, as is the case here.

Findings of the Court

In the first place, the Court recalls that Directive 85/374 seeks to achieve complete harmonisation of liability for defective products. Accordingly, the list of persons against whom a consumer is entitled to bring an action under the system of liability for defective products ( 2 ) must be regarded as exhaustive.

Although, under Article 1 of Directive 85/374, the EU legislature chose, in principle, to allocate to the producer liability for damage caused by his or her defective products, Article 3 of that directive indicates which of the operators who have taken part in the manufacturing and marketing processes for the product in question will also have to assume that liability. Those operators include, first, the person who is at least partially involved in the process of manufacturing the product concerned and second, the person who presents him- or herself as a producer by putting his or her name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on that product. ( 3 ) It can therefore be concluded that the involvement of the person who presents him- or herself as a producer in the process of manufacturing the product is not necessary in order for such person to be classified as a ‘producer’. Ford Italia, which does not manufacture vehicles but merely purchases them from the manufacturer of those vehicles in order to distribute them in another Member State, may fall within the same classification if it presented itself as a ‘producer’ by putting its name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the vehicle in question. By that placement, the person who presents him- or herself as a producer gives the impression of being involved in the production process or of assuming responsibility for it.

In the second place, the Court notes at the outset that Ford Italia, as a distributor of a defective product, has not physically put its name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on that product. In the light of that clarification, it examines whether the fact that the ‘Ford’ mark, put on in the course of the manufacturing process of the vehicle in question and corresponding to the name of the manufacturer of that vehicle, also corresponds to a distinctive element of the name of that distributor is sufficient for that distributor to be classified as a ‘person who … presents him[- or her]self as … [a] producer’ pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 85/374.

First, the Court states that, where a person supplies a product, it makes no difference whether that person him- or herself has physically put his or her name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on that product or whether his or her name contains the wording which has been put on it by the manufacturer and which corresponds to the manufacturer’s name. In those two cases, the supplier uses the similarity between the wording in question and that supplier’s own company name in order to present him- or herself to the consumer as the person responsible for the quality of the product and to give rise to confidence on the part of that consumer comparable to that which he or she would have if the product had been sold directly by that supplier’s producer. In both cases, that person must be regarded as a person who ‘presents him[- or her]self as … [a] producer’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 85/374.

Second, the Court points out that, in the light of the context of Article 3(1) of Directive 85/374 and the objective pursued by that directive, the concept of ‘person who … presents him[- or her]self as … [a] producer’ cannot refer exclusively to the person who has physically put his or her name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product. To agree otherwise would be to restrict the scope of the concept of ‘producer’ to which the EU legislature chose to give a broad interpretation, and thus compromise the protection of consumers, who must be able to choose freely to claim full compensation for the damage suffered from the producer or from the person who presents him- or herself as such. In particular, the supplier of a product ‘presents him[- or her]self as its producer’ where the name of that supplier or a distinctive element thereof is the same, on the one hand, as the name of the manufacturer and, on the other hand, as the name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature put on the product by the manufacturer.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that, pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 85/374, the supplier of a defective product must be considered to be a ‘person who … presents him[-or her]self as … [a] producer’ of that product where that supplier has not physically put his or her name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on that product, but the trade mark which the producer has put on that product is the same, on the one hand, as the name of that supplier or a distinctive element thereof and, on the other hand, as the name of the producer.

( 1 ) Article 3(1) 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). Pursuant to that provision, ‘“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 [or her] name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product presents him[- or her]self as its producer’.

( 2 ) Articles 1 and 3 of Directive 85/374.

( 3 ) Article 3(1) of Directive 85/374.