Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2024:332
Date: 2024-04-18
Language of the case: Italian
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary C-157/23 – 1 
Case C-157/23 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
13 March 2023 
Referring court:  
Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
6 March 2023 
Appellant:  
Ford Italia SpA 
Respondents:  
ZP 
Stracciari SpA 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal in cassation against a judgment of the Corte d’appello (Court of Appeal) 
finding the appellant, which had supplied a car with a defective airbag, to be non-
contractually liable, and ordering it to pay compensation for the damage resulting 
to the purchaser of the vehicle, since the appellant had not taken steps to join the 
vehicle manufacturer to the case. With a view to better consumer protection, the 
Court of Appeal held that the joinder of the relevant producer was part of the 
obligation to identify the producer incumbent upon a supplier wishing to be 
relieved of liability for damage caused by defective products, so that the exclusion 
of the supplier from the case was subject to the producer being joined to the 
proceedings. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of Article 3 of Directive 85/374/EC, pursuant to Article 267 TFEU. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-157/23 
 
2  
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Is an interpretation that extends the producer’s liability to the supplier, even where 
the latter has not physically placed its own name, trade mark or other 
distinguishing feature on the item, on the sole ground that the supplier has a name, 
trade mark or other distinguishing feature that is in whole or in part the same as 
that of the producer, consistent with Article 3[(1)] of Directive 85/374/EEC? If it 
is not consistent with that provision, why is that the case? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
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 [‘the Directive]: Article 3 and recitals 4 and 5. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Presidential Decree No 224 of 24 May 1988 – Implementation of Directive 
[85/374/EEC], pursuant to Article 15 of Law No 183 of 16 April 1987 [‘the 
Decree’]: 
Article 3 ‘Producer’: 1. ‘Producer’ means the manufacturer of a finished product 
or of a component part thereof and the producer of the raw material. (…) 3. Any 
person who presents himself as a producer by putting his name, trade mark or 
other distinguishing feature on the product or on its packaging is also considered 
to be a producer. 
Article 4 ‘Supplier’s liability’: 1. Where the producer is not identified, a supplier 
who has distributed the product in the course of his business shall be subject to the 
same liability, unless he has informed the injured person, within three months of 
the request, of the identity and address of the producer or the person who supplied 
him with the product. (…) 5. A third party identified as the producer or prior 
supplier may be joined to the case pursuant to Article 106 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure and the supplier summoned may be excluded, if the person who has 
been identified appears and does not challenge the identification. In the case 
referred to in the third paragraph, the defendant may request that the applicant be 
ordered to reimburse the expenses he has incurred by being joined to the case. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 ZP brought an action before the Tribunale di Bologna (Bologna District Court) 
against the companies Stracciari SpA, as vendor, and Ford Italia SpA, as producer 
of its own car model, the Ford Mondeo Ghia, seeking compensation for damages 
suffered in a car accident in which the car’s airbag did not deploy. 
FORD ITALIA 
 
3 
2 In the legal proceedings, Ford Italia denied that it was the producer, stating that 
Ford Werke Aktiengesellschaft – belonging to its industrial group – was the 
producer, as stated on the sales invoice. It also maintained that it was not liable for 
the defect in the product at issue, in so far as the supplier is not liable for such a 
defect if the producer is identified and in any event if the consumer is informed of 
the producer’s identity, as was the case, according to Ford Italia, in the present 
circumstances. 
3 The District Court upheld the action. Ford Italia brought an appeal, which was 
rejected by the Bologna Court of Appeal on the grounds that ‘its position was 
equivalent to that of a producer that has not been stated’. Like the District Court 
before it, the Court of Appeal interpreted the legislation relied on (Article 4 of the 
Decree) as meaning that, in order to be excluded from the case, a supplier must 
not only provide data identifying the producer but must also have the producer 
joined to the case, in order to provide better protection to the consumer. 
4 Ford Italia brought an appeal in cassation. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
5 The applicant argues, first, on the basis of certain judgments of the Corte di 
cassazione (Court of Cassation) and on the basis of Article 3(3) of the Directive, 
that the interpretation of Article 4 of the Decree underlying the contested 
judgment is erroneous and that such Article 4 in any event does not apply in the 
present case, since the producer has been identified. In any event, if the Court of 
Cassation were to consider the interpretation offered by the Court of Appeal to be 
plausible, which the applicant disputes, the applicant requests that a question be 
referred for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice to determine whether it is 
in conformity with the provisions of the Directive, which said Article 4 is 
designed to implement. 
6 Ford Italia further argues that it has no liability pursuant to the third paragraph of 
Article 3 of the Decree, a provision that extends the producer’s liability to a 
supplier who puts his name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the 
product or on its packaging. 
7 It argues that the third paragraph of Article 3 sanctions, by means of this 
extension, only a supplier that presents itself as a producer, namely one who, by 
means of specific conduct, adds its own mark to the trademark for its own reasons 
(advertising-related, commercial or of another kind) thus preventing consumers 
from being certain of the identity of the producer. While it is true that the 
appellant, like the producer, has the element ‘Ford’ in its name, it argues that it did 
not take action to put an element on the product in order to cause confusion for 
consumers. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal relied solely on Article 4 of the 
Decree when finding the appellant liable. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-157/23 
 
4  
8 The appellant is aware that the Court of Cassation has, however, recently given an 
interpretation of the third paragraph of Article 3 of the Decree that differs from its 
own, in a case on a similar event concerning damages for a defective product, in 
which Ford Italia was once again acting as distributor. In that judgment, the Court 
of Cassation held that there was liability in the case of any objective duplication, 
whether total or predominant, for the consumer, of distinguishing features under 
which the producer, on the one hand, and the distributor/supplier/importer, on the 
other hand, market a product. 
9 Thus, should the Court of Cassation decide to adopt such a broader interpretation 
of the provision in question, which the appellant disputes, the appellant requests 
that a question be referred for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice 
regarding the interpretation of Article 3(1) of the Directive, which the third 
paragraph of Article 3 of the Decree seeks to implement. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
10 The Court of Cassation held that the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of Article 4 
of the Decree was erroneous and considered that the situation in the present case 
fell within the scope of Article 3 of the Decree. It has doubts, however, 
concerning the precise scope of the expression ‘by putting his name’ contained 
within the third paragraph, namely, as to whether (a) it refers only to the physical 
application of the distinguishing element to a product carried out by a person who 
is not its producer, with the intention of taking advantage of an ambiguity 
regarding the producer, or whether (b) it also includes the simple and 
unintentional duplication of elements in its own identifying details, as it considers 
to be the case with regard to the appellant concerning the distinguishing element 
‘Ford’. 
11 The broader interpretation (b) appears to the Court of Cassation to be acceptable 
from the viewpoint of consumer protection; the Court considers, however, that it 
would also be possible to support the more restrictive interpretation (a), put 
forward by the appellant, with a view to counter-balancing the interests of the 
persons involved. The text of the provision, which faithfully reproduces 
Article 3(1) of the Directive, may be read in either of these senses. 
12 The question is relevant for the main proceedings because, should the broader 
interpretation be correct, the appeal would be unfounded, while if it were not, the 
appeal would have to be upheld.