French Consumer Law is a comprehensive and comparative overview of French and EU law in this field, covering: advertising, unfair commercial practices, conditions for the validity of contracts, unfair terms, product conformity, latent defects, product safety.

French Consumer Law

Article L. 411-1 (former Article L. 212-1) of the Consumer Code imposes a general obligation of conformity on the “person responsible for the first placing on the market” of the product. The DGCCRF defines the concept of first placing on the market as the making available of the good or service on French territory, against payment or free of charge, with a view to its distribution and/or use. Accordingly, case law has inferred that, when the product was manufactured in France, the person responsible for the first placing on the market is in principle the manufacturer of the product . When the product has been manufactured abroad, the Court of Cassation considers that the importer must ensure its compliance upon its arrival on the national territory . Thus, the undertaking that obtained its supplies in Monaco and then marketed the foodstuff in question in France is the importer, and is therefore responsible, as the first person to place it on the market, for the use of an unauthorized health claim on its label . Although the concept of manufacture abroad covers any product designed outside the national territory, including in a Member State of the European Union, it should be noted that Union law precludes a second control of conformity when a product comes from a Member State in which it has been manufactured and controlled in accordance with the rules in force in that State .

As placing on the market refers to the making available of the good or service, are manufacturers and importers the only persons covered by Article L. 411-1? The Court of Cassation has responded in the negative. The Court of Cassation considers that control of the quality and conformity of products should be carried at all stages of the marketing of a product . Also the general  obligation of conformity applies to fruits and vegetable agent, even if his Spanish principal is solely responsible for the placing of the produce on the EU single market , and to the exclusive distributor in France of CD-Roms published in Spain, who must ensure that the product it markets complies with the information provided on the packaging . Therefore, the head of a company that is “leader” at national level in its specialty and has an analytical laboratory whose efficiency it emphasizes, must carry out checks on the origin of the products it markets . According to the Paris Court of Appeal, the manager of a company who claims to be merely a reseller, must be equated to an importer insofar as the import company that supplied him was operating in the premises of that manager's company and he holds, through the intemediary of his son whose shares he had financed, a majority stake in the import company . 

The obligation to verify the conformity of products with the requirements in force is the personal responsibility of the head of the company, who can be released from it by means of a delegation of power. However, that delegation of power will be without effect if it appears that he or she has retained a power of intervention in the supplies and commercial policy of the group, as well as in its general policy . Furthermore, the Court of Cassation has recenlty held that the mistake made by the technical controller having validated a prototype not in conformity with European standards gives rise to a right to compensation for the manufacturer forced to undertake work to bring its products into conformity .

 Cass. crim., 3 April 1974, LawLex200600001584JBJ, including when the goods have been packed by contractors in its service.

 Cass. crim., 2 July 1997, LawLex200600000552JBJ; Cass. crim., 10 April 1997, LawLex200400001145JBJ: in this case, the importer of products manufactured in China whose conformity was validated by a Dutch laboratory, was criticized for failing to fulfil its obligation of conformity, as the verification had been carried out prior to the importation.

 Cass. civ. 1re, 22 November 2017, LawLex201800000467JBJ.

Cass. crim., 20 October 2020, LawLex202000002857JBJ.

 Case C-40/04 Syuichi Yonemoto, Judgment of 8 September 2005, LawLex201800000098JBJ: Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery precludes the application of national provisions which require the importer in a Member State of machinery manufactured in another Member State, bearing the CE marking and accompanied by an EC declaration of conformity, to ensure that that machinery meets the essential health and safety requirements laid down by that directive. 

 Cass. crim., 10 January 2006, LawLex200600001657JBJ: conformity testing applies to a French honey retailer, having neither the status of an importer nor of a manufacturer, who has not carried out checks as to the origin of the honey that it markets under the name “Fleurs des Vosges”, and which contains a level of chestnut pollen incompatible with the honey produced in the Vosges area. 

 Cass. crim., 9 March 1999, LawLex200600000994JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 11 June 2003, LawLex200300002514JBJ; 9 March 1999, LawLex200600000994JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 10 January 2006, LawLex200600001657JBJ, see above.

 CA Paris, 15 December 1993, LawLex200400001775JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 3 May 2006, LawLex200600001274JBJ.

492. Person responsible for the first placing on the market