EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62000CJ0052
Summary of the Judgment
Summary of the Judgment
1. Approximation of laws - Measures for the establishment and functioning of the internal market - Legal basis - Article 100 of the Treaty (now Article 94 EC) - Possibility for the Member States to maintain or establish provisions departing from Community harmonisation measures - No such possibility
(EEC Treaty, Art. 100 (amended to Art. 100 of the EC Treaty, now Art. 94 EC); EC Treaty, Art. 100a (now Art. 95 EC))
2. Approximation of laws - Measures for the establishment and functioning of the internal market - Directives already adopted when Article 153 EC entered into force - Possibility for the Member States to maintain or establish more stringent consumer protection measures on the basis of Article 153 EC - No effect
(Arts 94 EC, 95 EC and 153 EC)
3. Approximation of laws - Liability for defective products - Directive 85/374 - Margin of discretion of the Member States - Degree of harmonisation achieved by the Directive
(Council Directive 85/374)
4. Approximation of laws - Liability for defective products - Directive 85/374 - Possibility of retaining a general system of product liability different from that provided for in the Directive - No such possibility
(Council Directive 85/374, Art. 13)
5. Action for failure to fulfil obligations - Disregard of obligations under a directive - Pleas in defence - Plea questioning the lawfulness of the directive - Not admissible
(Arts 226 EC, 227 EC, 230 EC and 232 EC)
6. Approximation of laws - Liability for defective products - Directive 85/374 - Scope - Different system of liability applying to the producers and victims of defective products - Whether justifiable
(Council Directive 85/374, Art. 9(b))
7. Action for failure to fulfil obligations - Subject-matter of the dispute - Delimited in the course of the pre-litigation procedure - Whether the subject-matter may subsequently be narrowed - Permissible
(Art. 226 EC)
1. Unlike Article 100a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 95 EC), Article 100 of the EEC Treaty (amended to Article 100 of the EC Treaty, now Article 94 EC) provides no possibility for the Member States to maintain or establish provisions departing from Community harmonising measures.
( see para. 14 )
2. Article 153 EC is worded in the form of an instruction addressed to the Community concerning its future policy and cannot permit the Member States, owing to the direct risk that would pose for the acquis communautaire, autonomously to adopt measures contrary to the Community law contained in the directives already adopted at the time of entry into force of that law. In fact, the competence conferred in that respect on the Member States by Article 153(5) EC concerns only the measures mentioned at paragraph 3(b) of that article. That competence does not extend to the measures referred to in paragraph 3(a) of Article 153 EC, that is to say the measures adopted pursuant to Article 95 EC in the context of attainment of the internal market with which in that respect the measures adopted under Article 94 EC must be equated.
( see para. 15 )
3. The margin of discretion available to the Member States in order to make provision for product liability is entirely determined by Directive 85/374 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products and must be inferred from its wording, purpose and structure. The fact that the Directive provides for certain derogations or refers in certain cases to national law does not mean that in regard to the matters which it regulates harmonisation is not complete. It follows that Directive 85/374 seeks to achieve, in regard to those matters, complete harmonisation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States.
( see paras 16, 19, 24 )
4. Article 13 of Council Directive 85/374 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products cannot be interpreted as giving the Member States the possibility of maintaining a general system of product liability different from that provided for in the Directive.
The reference in that provision to the rights which an injured person may rely on under the rules concerning contractual or non-contractual liability 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. Likewise the reference in the aforementioned article to the rights which an injured person may rely on under a special liability system existing at the time when the Directive was notified must be construed as referring to a specific scheme limited to a given sector of production.
( see paras 21-23 )
5. The system of remedies set up by the Treaty distinguishes between the remedies provided for in Articles 226 EC and 227 EC, whereby a declaration that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations may be sought, and those provided for in Articles 230 EC and 232 EC, which seek judicial review of the lawfulness of measures adopted by the Community institutions or of the institutions' failure to adopt measures. Those remedies serve different purposes and are subject to different rules. In the absence of a provision of the Treaty expressly permitting it to do so, a Member State cannot, therefore, properly plead the unlawfulness of a decision addressed to it as a defence in an action for a declaration that it has failed to fulfil its obligations arising out of its failure to implement that decision.
( see para. 28 )
6. The limits set by the Community legislature to the scope of Council Directive 85/374 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products are the result of a complex balancing of different interests. As is apparent from the first and ninth recitals in the preamble to the Directive, those interests include guaranteeing that competition will not be distorted, facilitating trade within the common market, consumer protection and ensuring the sound administration of justice.
The consequence of the choice made by the Community legislature is that, in order to avoid an excessive number of disputes, in the event of minor material damage the victims of defective products cannot rely on the rules of liability laid down in the Directive but must bring an action under the ordinary law of contractual or non-contractual liability.
In those circumstances the threshold provided for in Article 9(b) of the Directive cannot be regarded as affecting victims' rights of access to the courts.
Similarly, the fact that different systems of liability apply to the producers and victims of defective products does not constitute an infringement of the principle of equal treatment where the differentiation dependent on the nature and amount of the damage suffered is objectively justified.
( see paras 29-32 )
7. Although under the Court's case-law the complaints in the application must be identical to those in the letter of formal notice and in the reasoned opinion, that requirement cannot be carried so far as to mean that in every case the statement of complaints must be exactly the same, where the subject-matter of the proceedings has not been extended or altered.
( see para. 44 )