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

1)  Endangering the lives of others
Legal persons convicted of endangering the lives of others are liable to a fine of EUR 75,000  as well as the prohibition, permanently or for a maximum period of five years, to directly or directly exercising one or more professional or social activities, the placing under judicial supervision for a maximum period of five years, the confiscation of the thing use …

Legal entities

The breach of the safety obligation provided for in Article L. 421-3 (former Article L. 221-1, paragraph  1) of the Consumer Code does not, in itself, constitute a criminal offense. However, , when a product for which they are responsible is defective, professionals, as natural or legal persons may have their criminal liability sought by the victim or his successors, but also by an approved consumer defense association . In this case, in addition to the offenses set out in the Consumer Code relating to deceit and falsification, the Criminal Code sets out a series of offenses that may be constituted.

Article 223-1 of the Criminal Code sanctions “directly exposing another to an immediate risk of death or injury likely to result in permanent mutilation or disability by the manifestly deliberate violation of a particular safety obligation or duty of care imposed by the law or regulations”. It should be emphasized that this offense can be established even if the product or service has not caused any bodily harm  as the text refers to the mere exposure to the risk. For the offense to be characterized, it must be demonstrated that the professional has breached a particular safety obligation or duty of care imposed by law .

2) Involuntary homicide/harm to the integrity of the person 

Article 221-6 of the Criminal Code provides that “causing the death of another person by thoughtlessness, rashness, carelessness, negligence or breach of a safety requirement or duty of care imposed by the law or regulations, constitutes manslaughter”. Article 222-19 of the Criminal Code sanctions “causing a total incapacity to work to another person for a period which exceeds three months by thoughtlessness, rashness, carelessness, negligence or breach of a safety requirement or duty of care imposed by the law or regulations” .

Unlike the offense of endangering the lives of others, the offenses provided for in Articles 221-6 and 222-19 of the Criminal Code are only established if the victim has suffered personal injury.

May be held liable under Articles 221-6 and 222-19 of the Criminal Code, since Law No 2000-647 of 10 July 2000  specifying the definition of the involuntary offenses contained in Article L. 121-3:

(i) natural persons who have caused the damage directly through their fault, even slight; (ii) natural persons who indirectly caused the damage , but only when they have committed a deliberate or characterized fault; (ii) legal persons, when a causal link is established between their fault and the damage .

Article 121-3 as amended thus leads to a distinction, as regards natural persons, according to whether the fault directly or indirectly caused the bodily injury.

In the event of a direct causal link, the natural person incurs his liability in case of reckless misconduct, negligence or breach of an obligation of caution or safety provided by the law or regulations, if it is established that the perpetrator has not performed the normal procedures taking into account, where appropriate, the nature of his mission or tasks, his skills and the authority and means he disposes of .

In the event of an indirect causal link, Article 121-3, paragraph 4 of the Criminal Code provides that the criminal liability of natural persons can only be incurred if it is established that they have manifestly deliberately breached a particular duty of care or safety obligation provided by the law or regulations or committed a characterized fault which exposed another person to a particularly serious risk that they could not be unaware of .

However, legal entities which are not covered by the provisions of Law NO 2000-647 of 10 July 2000 may be held criminally liable for the unintentional fault of their bodies or representatives, even if the criminal liability of natural persons cannot be sought .

  Cass. crim., 24 June 1997, LawLex200400001326JBJ; 1 April 2008, LawLex200800000811JBJ..

  Unlike the offenses of manslaughter and involuntary attack on the integrity of the person.

 Cass. crim., 4 December 2007, LawLex201300001057JBJ: "it follows from the provisions of Articles 121-2, 121-3 and 222-21 of the Criminal Code that legal persons are criminally liable for any unintentional fault on the part of their bodies or representatives which has resulted in an attack on physical integrity constituting the offense of unintentional injury, even if, in the absence of willful or characterized misconduct within the meaning of Article 121-3, paragraph 4 of the same Code, the criminal liability of natural persons cannot be sought"; 11 July 2017, LawLex201800000247JBJ, considering however that to declare the damage of the engine manufactured and maintained by the defendant to be the cause of the accident and to engage that undertaking's liability for involuntary manslaughter, the Court of Appeal cannot hold that it is a matter of a problem of safety of the aircraft which, in the absence of delegation of power, is the responsibility of the company's management just as it is the responsibility of the company to establish and comply with a new standard such as TU275 and to verify compliance with the applicable regulations, without investigating by which bodies or representatives of the legal entity the breaches noted were committed, or whether they were committed on its behalf.

  See for example Cass. crim., 15 April 2008, LawLex201300001034JBJ, considering that a professional in the packing and trade of game meat who, by marking products that have undergone thawing and refreezing operations, cannot be unaware of the risks incurred by his customers, is guilty of endangering others, even if the goods delivered to supermarkets have not been objected to by their sanitary control services and no affection has been reported to the investigators, among the customers.

CA Toulouse, 20 January 2020, LawLex202000000110JBJ, considering that even if the breaches of the company of the large-scale retailer in question in the means to be implemented to individually alert the customers identified as having acquired the defective product, being the subject of the withdrawal campaign, cannot be considered as being at the direct origin of the harm caused to the victim since it cannot be asserted with certainty that, without the acts of the distributor, he/she would not have been injured as a result of the sudden breaking of the siphon head, it is certain that, without these acts, he/she would have had a chance to avoid physical injury and therefore must be compensated for the loss of this chance, without this indemnity being equivalent to the benefit that this chance would have provided if it had been realized.

By knowingly placing on the market a potentially dangerous food product without having the necessary analyses carried out, the defendant violated in a manifestly deliberate way the duties of care and safety provided for by Regulation No 178/2002 on food safety, thus justifying the conviction for unintentional injuries, Cass. crim., 31 March 2020, LawLex202000000401JBJ.

 A natural person indirectly caused the damage when he created or contributed to creating the situation that led to the damage or did not take the measures to avoid it; see Article 121-3, paragraph 4 of the Criminal Code.

Cass. crim., 4 September 2007, LawLex201800000245JBJ, holding that a court of appeal cannot declare a car manufacturer guilty of involuntary manslaughter on the grounds that it should have put in place more reactive distribution circuits likely to ensure effective reporting of information, and more particularly of information relating to operating anomalies likely to endanger the safety of the consumer, without investigating whether, in the absence of malfunctions revealed prior to the accident, this negligence contributed with certainty to the victim's death; 13 October 2015, LawLex201800000244JBJ, noting that the undertaking that built a thrill ride, whose major manufacturing and assembly defects were highlighted by the experts and supervisors, is criminally liable for manslaughter and unintentional injury (as well its manager), since it should have prevented the accident by inspecting and verifying the quality of the work of its subcontractors, in accordance with a protocol that it was responsible for establishing;  11 July 2017, LawLex201800000247JBJ: irrespective of the exact origin of the helicopter accident, the undertaking which manufactured and maintained its engine must be declared guilty of manslaughter, since on the one hand it failed to implement on the aircraft the TU 275 technical modification, to avoid the breaking of the cover bars and the damage it causes to the centrifugal compressor, and, on the other hand, it did not pay sufficient attention to the blades of the said compressor, likely to present fatigue cracks, such as the one already detected on an aircraft of the same type in 1989, which could lead to its breakage.

 Criminal Code, Article 121-3, paragraph  3.

  See, for example, Cass. crim., 1 April 2008, LawLex200800000811JBJ.

Criminal charges

For natural persons, the penalty for the offense of endangering the lives of others is one year imprisonment and a fine of EUR 15,000 .

For natural persons, involuntary manslaughter is punishable by three years' imprisonment and a fine of EUR 45,000 . These penalties are increased to five years' imprisonment and a fine of EUR 75,000 in the event of a manifestly deliberate breach of a particular safety obligation or duty of care imposed by the law or regulations.

3)  Involuntary harm to the integrity of the person

Natural persons responsible for involuntary harm to the integrity of the person incur the following penalties:

-  two years' imprisonment and a fine of EUR 30,000 in the event of total incapacity to work for more than three months ; these penalties are increased to three years' imprisonment and a fine of EUR 45,000 in the event of a manifestly deliberate breach of a particular safety obligation or duty of care imposed by the law or regulations ;

-  one year's imprisonment and a fine of EUR 15,000 in the event of total incapacity to work for a period less than or equal to three months and a manifestly deliberate breach of a particular safety obligation or duty of care imposed by the law or regulations  ;

-  a fine of EUR 150 if the involuntary harm to the integrity of the person have not led to a total incapacity to work .

 Criminal Code, Article 221-6, paragraph  1.

 Criminal Code, Article 222-19, paragraph  2.

 Criminal Code, Articles R. 622-1 and 131-13.

Natural persons

Legal persons convicted of endangering the lives of others are liable to a fine of EUR 75,000  as well as the prohibition, permanently or for a maximum period of five years, to directly or directly exercising one or more professional or social activities, the placing under judicial supervision for a maximum period of five years, the confiscation of the thing used to commit the offense and the display or dissemination of the decision handed down .

2)  Involuntary manslaughter and involuntary harm to the integrity of the person

Legal persons declared criminally liable for involuntary manslaughter  or involuntary harm to the integrity of the person  incur:

-  a fine equal to five times that provided for natural persons;

-  the penalties provided for in 2°, 3°, 8° and 9° of Article 131-39, i.e. the prohibition, permanently or for a maximum period of five years, to exercise directly or indirectly one or more professional or social activities, the placing under judicial supervision for a period of up to five years, the confiscation of the thing used to commit the offense and the display or dissemination of the decision handed down.

 Criminal Code, Articles R. 223-2 and 131-38.

French Consumer Law

655. Legal entities

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les notions juridiques connexes

655. Legal entities

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise