1.

Must Article 13 of Directive 85/374/EEC (1) of 25 July 1985, as interpreted by the judgment of 25 April 2002 (Maria Victoria Gonzalez Sanchez v Medicina Asturiana SA. C-183/00), according to which an injured person may rely on systems of contractual or non-contractual liability having a different basis from that put in place by the directive, be interpreted to mean that the victim of a defective product may seek compensation for his or her injury from the producer under a general system of fault-based liability, relying in particular on the fact that the product has been allowed to remain in circulation, a failure to exercise vigilance with respect to the risks associated with the product or, more generally, a safety defect in that product.?

2.

Is Article 11 of Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985, under which the rights conferred on the victim by that directive are extinguished upon the expiry of a period of 10 years from the date on which the harmful product was put into circulation, incompatible with the provisions of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that it deprives a victim suffering from a progressive injury caused by a defective product from the right of access to a court?

3.

Can Article 10 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 which determines the date on which the three-year limitation period begins to run as ‘the day on which the plaintiff became aware, or should reasonably have become aware, of the damage’, be interpreted as meaning that the period starts to run only on the day on which the whole of the damage is known, in particular by the establishment of a stabilisation date, defined as the moment from which the condition of the victim of physical injury is no longer evolving – meaning that, where a medical condition is progressive, the limitation period does not start to run – rather than as the day when the damage has clearly appeared and can be linked to the defective product, regardless of its subsequent development?