Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2002:255
Date: 2002-04-25
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Consumer protection;Approximation of laws
Concepts: Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice;General;Liability for defective products
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Spain

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Preliminary rulings — jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Manifestly irrelevant 
question — jurisdiction of national courts — Establishment and evaluation of the 
facts — Application of provisions interpreted by the Court 
(Art. 234 EC) 
I - 3901 
SUMMARY — CASE C-183/00 
2. Approximation of laws — Measures for the establishment and functioning of the 
internal market — Legal basis — Article 100 of the Treaty (now Article 94 EC) — 
Possibility for the Member States to maintain or establish provisions departing from 
Community harmonisation measures — No such possibility 
(EEC Treaty, Art. 100 (amended to Art. 100 of the EC Treaty, now Art. 94 EC); EC 
Treaty, Art. 100a (now Art. 95 EC)) 
3. Approximation of laws — Measures for the establishment and functioning of the 
internal market — Directives already adopted when Article 153 EC entered into 
force — Possibility for the Member States to maintain or establish more stringent 
consumer protection measures on the basis of Article 153 EC —• No effect 
(Arts 94 EC, 95 EC and 153 EC) 
4. Approximation of laws — Liability for defective products — Directive 85/374 — 
Margin of discretion of the Member States 
(Council Directive 85/374) 
5. Approximation of laws — Liability for defective products — Directive 85/374 — 
Possibility of retaining a general system of product liability different from that 
provided for in the Directive — No such possibility 
(Council Directive 85/374, Art. 13) 
1. In the context of the cooperation 
between the Court of Justice and the 
national courts provided for by 
Article 234 EC, it is solely for the 
national courts before which disputes 
have been brought, and which must 
assume responsibility for the sub­
sequent judicial decision, to determine 
in the light of the particular circum­
stances of the case both the need for a 
preliminary ruling in order to enable 
them to deliver judgment and the 
relevance of the questions which they 
submit to the Court. The Court may 
not decline to give a ruling on a 
question referred to it by a national 
court unless it is quite obvious that the 
interpretation of Community law or 
the consideration of the validity of a 
Community rule sought by that court 
bears no relation to the facts of the 
main action or its purpose. 
(see para. 16) 
2. Unlike Article 100a of the EC Treaty 
(now, after amendment, Article 95 
EC), Article 100 of the EEC Treaty 
(amended to Article 100 of the EC 
Treaty, now Article 94 EC) provides 
I - 3902 
GONZÁLEZ SÁNCHEZ 
no possibility for the Member States to 
maintain or establish provisions 
departing from Community harmon­
ising measures. 
(see para. 23) 
3. Article 153 EC is worded in the form 
of an instruction addressed to the 
Community concerning its future pol­
icy and cannot permit the Member 
States, owing to the direct risk that 
would pose for the acquis communaut­
aire, autonomously to adopt measures 
contrary to the Community law con­
tained in the directives already adopted 
at the time of entry into force of that 
law. In fact, the competence conferred 
in that respect on the Member States by 
Article 153(5) EC concerns only the 
measures mentioned at paragraph 3(b) 
of that article. That competence does 
not extend to the measures referred to 
in paragraph 3(a) of Article 153 EC, 
that is to say the measures adopted 
pursuant to Article 95 EC in the con­
text of attainment of the internal 
market with which in that respect the 
measures adopted under Article 94 EC 
must be equated. 
(see para. 24) 
4. The margin of discretion available to 
the Member States in order to make 
provision for product liability is 
entirely determined by Directive 
85/374 on the approximation of the 
laws, regulations and administrative 
provisions of the Member States con­
cerning liability for defective products 
and must be inferred from its wording, 
purpose and structure. The fact that the 
Directive provides for certain deroga­
tions or refers in certain cases to 
national law does not mean that in 
regard to the matters which it regulates 
harmonisation is not complete. 
(see paras 25, 28) 
5. Article 13 of Directive 85/374 on the 
approximation of the laws, regulations 
and administrative provisions of the 
Member States concerning liability for 
defective products must be interpreted 
as meaning that the rights conferred 
under the legislation of a Member State 
on the victims of damage caused by a 
defective product under a general sys­
tem of liability having the same basis as 
that put in place by the Directive may 
be limited or restricted as a result of the 
Directive's transposition into the 
domestic law of that State. 
(see para. 34, operative part) 
I - 3903