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

The action in liability of the victim of a defective product is subject to two limitation periods.
1)  Three-year limitation period
Article 1245-16 (former Article 1386-17) of the Civil Code provides that “the action for compensation based on the provisions of this Title are time-barred three years from the date on which the claimant was aware or should have been aware of the damage, defect and id …

Two limitation periods

The action in liability of the victim of a defective product is subject to two limitation periods.

Article 1245-16 (former Article 1386-17) of the Civil Code provides that “the action for compensation based on the provisions of this Title are time-barred three years from the date on which the claimant was aware or should have been aware of the damage, defect and identity of the producer”. The limitation period for the action for damages due to defective products requires establishing, cumulatively, that the date of occurrence of all of the damage and its knowledge, the date of knowledge of the defect  of the product at issue and the identity of the producer, are prior to the initiation of the legal proceedings by more than three years .  However, the Court of Cassation considers that in the case of a progressive pathology, which makes it impossible to fix a permanent residual injury date, which is the only way for the claimant to measure the extent of his or her harm, the three-year time-limit set by Article 1245-16 of the Civil Code cannot begin to run . A summons to appear (citation en justice) should be understood as the filing of a claim on the merits .  The three-year time-limit stipulated in this text is a classic limitation period, subject to interruption  or suspension in accordance with ordinary law  . The victim's action is therefore admissible only if the pleadings in support of his or her claim are served before the expiry of this period .This three-year period must, however, be combined with the ten-year limitation period laid down in Article 1245-15 (former Article 1386-16) of the Civil Code.

Article 1245-15 of the Civil Code, in accordance with Article 11 of Directive No 85/374 , provides that “except in the event of fault on the part of the producer, his liability, based on the provisions of this title, is extinguished ten years after the product that caused the damage has been put into circulation unless, during that period, the victim has instituted legal proceedings” . Thus, the poor storage conditions of a prosthetic knee make it a defective product, but do not in themselves characterize a fault likely to exempt the producer from the benefit of the 10-year statute of limitations provided for in Article L. 1245-15, when no legal action has been brought during the ten years following the release of said prosthetic knee .This time-limit is pre-determined . According to the Court of Justice, the intention of the Union legislator to keep within special temporal limits the of strict liability scheme established by the directive takes account of the fact that this system implies, for the producer, a burden higher than that of a traditional liability system, “so as not to hinder technological development and to preserve the insurability of the risks associated with that specific liability” . In the case of mass-produced products, the ten-year period begins not on the date on which the product model is put into circulation, but the date on which the product having caused the damage is put into circulation .  According to case law, the existence of the dual limitation period to which product liability actions are subject precludes the five-year period laid down in Article L.110-4 of the Commercial Code from being applicable to them .

 CA Rennes, 23 May 2018, LawLex201800000790JBJ: the victim who brings an action for damages on the basis of liability for defective products nine years after having been notified of the fact that the pathology from which he was suffering was undoubtedly due to taking the medicine in question, whereas from said notification he was, or should have been aware, of the lack of information he seeks to rely on by reading the notice provided with the drug, may not bring the claim; Cass. civ. 1re, 27 November 2019, LawLex201900001469JBJ : the plaintiffs' action against a laboratory cannot be declared time-barred since it was only after the investigations carried out to determine the origin of their child's radial anomalies and ophthalmological malformations had been completed, and after the expert report had been submitted, i.e. on 22 May 2011, that they were able to obtain the facts enabling them to be aware of the defective nature of Depakine, which was not indicated in the package leaflet as posing teratogenic risks, as well as its involvement in the damage, and thus to take action on the basis of product liability.

  CA Paris, 23 February 2016, LawLex201600000488JBJ. See also  CA Paris, 5 October 2004, LawLex200600001112JBJ;  CA Nancy, 8 February 2011, LawLex201200001840JBJ;  CA Chambery, 29 September 2009, LawLex201200001626JBJ;  CA Lyon, 1 April 2010, LawLex201200001576JBJ.

 Case C-358/08 Aventis Pasteur, Judgment of 2 December 2009, LawLex201100000401JBJ, specifying that the limitation period laid down in Article 11 of Directive No 85/374 precludes national legislation authorizing the substitution of one defendant for another in the course of legal proceedings being applied to allow the prosecution, after the expiry of the time limit it sets, of a “producer” within the meaning of Article 3 of this Directive, as a defendant in proceedings initiated within this time-limit against a person other than him.

 Case C-358/08 Aventis Pasteur, cited above.

 CA Dijon, 24 February 2011, LawLex201200001789JBJ.

CA Metz, 28 May 2024, LawLex202400004049JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ., 5 July 2023, LawLex202300008940JBJ.

 CA Versailles, 29 January 2015, LawLex201600000575JBJ.

CA Aix-en-Provence, November 5, 2015, LawLex201600000567JBJ, holding that, pursuant to Article 2240 of the Civil Code, the debtor's recognition of the right of the person against whom he was applying the statute of limitations interrupts the limitation period, so that acknowledgement by the insurer of the right to compensation for personal injury to the victim of a defective product interrupted the course of the three-year limitation period provided for in Article 1386-17 (now Art. 1245-16); CA Douai, 25 October 2018, LawLex201800001651JBJ: even if the debtor's acknowledgment of the right of the person against whom he is time-barred interrupts the limitation period, neither the instigation of a recall action by the importer and distributor of a tumble dryer that caught fire, nor the presence of experts appointed by the insurers of the importer and distributor of a tumble dryer that caught fire, constitute a firm, unequivocal and unqualified acknowledgment of their liability in the fire claim, such that the action of the victim's insurer must be considered time-barred; CA Colmar, 3 May 2019, LawLex201900000609JBJ: a letter, in which the electricity supplier's insurer offers compensation and only disputes the amount of the damage attributable to the power surge, constitutes partial recognition of the right of the creditor, which has the effect of interrupting the limitation period for the entire claim of the action in liability for defective products; CA Versailles, 25 November 2020, LawLex202000003519JBJ: it follows from the combined application of Articles 1245-16 and 2240 of the Civil Code that the letter by which the electricity supplier asks the victim's insurer to justify by technical elements its claim on the electrical elements ” which may have been damaged by an [electrical] power surge (sockets, circuit breakers, etc.)” , in which no offer of compensation is made, does not entail acknowledgment of liability or interruption of the limitation period for the action in liability for defective products; CA Paris, 25 November 2020, LawLex202000003501JBJ: the payment, by the electricity supplier, who denies any liability for the damage caused by the fire at the victim's home, of only the electrical damage caused by a power surge, cannot be considered a waiver of the statute of limitations.

Cass. 1st civ, 26 October 2022, LawLex202200009759JBJ: an action brought against the lessor and his insurer on the basis of liability for defective products, seeking compensation for bodily harm, interrupts the time-limit, even after the time-limit has been previously interrupted by interim proceedings brought on the basis of liability for things, since although in principle the interruption of the period of limitation cannot extend from one action to another, this is not the case when the two actions, although having a distinct cause of action, have the same purpose.

CA Aix-en-Provence, 7 March 2012, LawLex201200001542JBJ;  CA Lyon, 16 December 2011, LawLex201600000612JBJ: the action for liability due to a defective product is prescribed from the date on which the claimant became aware of the damage, the defect and the identity of the producer, so that it must be regarded inadmissible when it is brought more than three years after receipt of the expert report by which the claimant was informed of the damage and the electrical defect of the device having caused the damage; Cass. civ. 2e, 13 June 2019, LawLex201900000810JBJ: a court of appeal cannot declare the action brought against the insurance company of the manufacturer of the disputed washing machine on the basis of liability for defective products admissible on the grounds that it is not time-barred, even though no writ of summons has been issued against it; CA Lyon, 21 December 2023, LawLex202400000095JBJ, ruling that a product liability action brought by an animal protection association against insecticide producers, seeking compensation for ecological damage and consequential moral harm, is time-barred, even if it was brought within the time-limit of ten years after the disputed insecticide was put into circulation, This was made known to the association on the basis of scientific journal articles, translated from English, dating from April, May and July 2014, which the association submitted for discussion, and which showed that the insecticide in question had a negative impact on the populations of insectivorous birds.

“Member States shall provide in their legislation that the rights conferred upon the injured person pursuant to this Directive shall be extinguished upon the expiry of a period of 10 years from the date on which the producer put into circulation the actual product which caused the damage, unless the injured person has in the meantime instituted proceedings against the producer”.

CA Reims, 10 December 2019, LawLex201900001560JBJ:  the fact that the disputed washing machine was sold on 16 July 2001 does not make it possible to establish that it was put into circulation more than 10 years before the producer was summoned to appear in court on 12 May 2011, and thereby preclude the victim's action, on the sole ground that it is reasonable to believe that the product was ordered upstream by the supplier and left the manufacturer's warehouses more than two months earlier. See, along the same lines, CA Montpellier, 20 October 2020, LawLex202000003002JBJ: the manufacturer does not establish that the summons of 26 April 2017 was late and therefore the action was time-barred, since he merely refers to the data sheet of the dishwasher indicating that it was produced during week 50 of the year 2006, i.e. in mid-December, then claims that its manufactured products are delivered in the following week and concludes that it therefore divested itself of the product “at the beginning of 2017” by putting it into circulation, without proving the exact date of this disposal, nor that it occurred before 26 April 2007.

CAA Nantes, 6 November 2020, LawLex202000003056JBJ, adding that no fault relating to a failure to warn of the defective nature of the disputed prosthesis is such as to preclude the application of the ten-year limitation period provided for in Article L. 1245-15 of the Civil Code for the benefit of its producer, since the latter had warned the AFSSAPS as early as August 2010 and that, under the provisions in force at the time, it was incumbent upon the latter to inform health professionals thereof.

Under French law, the court with jurisdiction to rule on liability for defective products is that of the place where the harmful event occurred or in the place where the harm was suffered .  

Where a contract does not contain a choice of forum clause, international jurisdiction is determined by application of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012, which stipulates that in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur. According to the Court of Justice, the place where the harmful event occurred, in matters of product liability designate the place where the initial damage occurred as a result of the normal use of the product for the purpose for which it was intended  and the place of the event giving rise to the damage is the place where the event which damaged the product itself occurred i.e. where the product in question was manufactured . In the presence of a jurisdiction clause the courts designated by the parties hear the dispute, as long as the conditions of Article 25 of Regulation No 1215/2012 are met .

Case C-189/08 Zuid-Chemie BV, Judgment of 16 July 2009, LawLex201100000485JBJ. For a repetition of the solution in French law, see Cass. civ. 1re, 25 February 2016, LawLex201600000476JBJ. For an application, see our une application, CA Limoges, 11 January 2018, LawLex201800000141JBJ, holding that by virtue of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012, the twelve undertakings that have had to preventively change the photovoltaic panels and the cards of defective junction boxes, and the insurance company subrogated in their rights, are, as the direct victims of the alleged defects, entitled, on the basis of Articles 1240, 1241, and 1245-1 et seq. of the Civil Code, to sue the companies concerned by the dispute (the manufacturers of the panels and incorporated junction boxes, and their respective insurers) in the court of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur, namely the French courts, insofar as the harmful event considered as relevant lies in the risk of overheating and a fire starting on the presumably normal installation, on the French territory, of each of the panels, as a result of the alleged defects in the junction boxes.

On the other hand, the place of the event giving rise to the damage cannot be the place where the product in question was transferred to the end consumer or to the reseller insofar as that place not does not guarantee that that consumer will, in all circumstances, be able to bring an action before the courts in the place where he is domiciled since that place may be elsewhere or even in another country: Case C-45/13 Kainz v Pantherwerke AG, Judgment of 16 January 2014, LawLex201400000032JBJ.

For an application, see Cass. 1re civ., 15 May 2018, LawLex201800000756JBJ: holding that in the absence of any challenge, a jurisdiction clause drafted in another language, designating the courts in the place of the corporate seat of the seller must be regarded as being tacitly accepted and enforceable against the buyer bringing an action in liability for defective products, when the buyer's attention was specifically directed - by the documents establishing the contractual relationship which contained on the front page an invitation in French to consult the terms and conditions of sale and delivery and, on the back, their reproduction in German including the jurisdiction clause.

French Consumer Law

684. Two limitation periods

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

684. Two limitation periods

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

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