CJEU Case C-338/24 / Judgment

LF v Sanofi Pasteur SA
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Second Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
26/03/2026
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2026:248

Title VI: Justice

Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial

Title VII: General provisions

Article 52 - Scope and interpretation

VIEW FULL CASE
  • CJEU Case C-338/24 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Liability for defective products – Directive 85/374/EEC – Article 13 – Relationship with the fault-based liability system – Fault by the producer linked to the defective nature of the product – Article 10 – Starting point of the three-year limitation period in the case of damage consisting in a progressive illness – Concept of ‘becoming aware of the damage’ – Article 11 – Extinguishment of the rights of the injured person – Validity – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right of access to a court.

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules:

    1. Article 13 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products

      must be interpreted as not precluding a person injured by a defective product from seeking compensation for that damage from the producer on the basis of the general fault-based liability system, claiming that the producer in question maintained a product in circulation where it was aware of a defect in that product, that it failed to comply with its duty of care in respect of the risks posed by that product or engaged in any other wrongful conduct linked to a lack of safety in respect of the defective product.

    2. Article 10(1) of Directive 85/374

      must be interpreted as meaning that the starting point of the three-year limitation period laid down by that provision is the date on which the claimant became aware, or should reasonably have become aware: of the damage, which has definitively become apparent, linked to the defective product, irrespective of its subsequent evolution; of the product defect; and of the identity of the producer, and as precluding a situation in which that starting point can only be the date on which the damage stabilised.

    3. The answer to the second question is that consideration thereof has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 11 of Directive 85/374.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    59. Nevertheless, by its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 11 of Directive 85/374, which establishes a limitation period of 10 years from the date on which the product is put into circulation, is valid in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, in so far as a person suffering from a progressive illness caused by a defective product may be deprived of his or her rights of access to a court or tribunal in view of the specific characteristics of an illness of that kind.

    60. According to settled case-law, the right to effective judicial protection, enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter, is not an absolute right and, in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter, limitations may be placed on it under certain conditions. In that regard, those limitations should (i) be provided for by law, (ii) respect the essence of the rights and freedoms at issue, and (iii) in compliance with the principle of proportionality, be necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the European Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others (judgment of 26 January 2023, Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Recording of biometric and genetic data by the police), C‑205/21, EU:C:2023:49, paragraph 89 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    62. As regards, next, the second condition, concerning respect for the essence of the rights of the injured person to have access to a court, it follows from the Court’s case-law that the essence of the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter includes, among other aspects, the possibility, for the person who holds that right, of accessing a court or tribunal with the power to ensure respect for the rights guaranteed to that person by EU law. To that end, that court or tribunal must be in a position to consider all the issues of fact and of law that are relevant for resolving the case before it (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 October 2020, État luxembourgeois (Right to bring an action against a request for information in tax matters), C‑245/19 and C‑246/19, EU:C:2020:795, paragraph 66 and the case-law cited).

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)