EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/476

(2004/C 78 E/0499)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3152/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Exploding Nokia telephones

Recently, over a short space of time, a number of mobile phones manufactured by the Finnish Nokia company have exploded. Nokia claims that these incidents result from the use of cheap (lithium) batteries not supplied by Nokia.

The telephone and batteries belonging to an inhabitant of Hengelo, who recently suffered an injury when his mobile phone exploded, are currently being investigated by the Netherlands Consumer Association. It claims that the young man from Hengelo was using original batteries. Nokia is aware of the incident but has not yet been able to investigate it. However, it maintains that, from the information currently available, it may be deduced that, once again, a counterfeit battery was the cause of the explosion.

In connection with the foregoing, Nokia advises consumers to use only original Nokia batteries. Nokia declines any liability for the explosions and claims that the Nokia warranty becomes invalid if batteries other than original batteries are used.

1. Is the Commission aware of various incidents involving exploding Nokia telephones?

2. Does the Commission take the view that the damage caused thereby is covered by Nokia's product liability?

3. Does the Commission take the view that this is a case of customers being obliged to purchase a particular product?

4. If so, does the Commission take the view that an obligation of this nature is bad for competition and that it may be in breach of competition legislation?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 2003)

The attention of the Honourable Member is first of all drawn to the Commission's answer to written question P-3145/03 (1) by Mr Van Velzen which provided information about Community legislation and its application to mobile phones and batteries.

The Commission is still waiting for detailed reports from the Member States' enforcement authorities, but as far as it is aware the incidents are due to short circuits in faulty batteries, which were not sold by the mobile phone manufacturer in question. He, therefore, could not be held liable for the damages caused if such batteries explode.

The Council adopted Directive 85/374/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (2) (the ‘Product Liability Directive’) on 25 July 1985.

This Directive establishes the principle of liability without fault on the part of the producer for damage to persons or any item of property caused by a defect in his product. Under this Directive the manufacturer of the mobile phone can be exonerated from liability, if the damage is due to a faulty replacement battery.

If however it could be proven, that the short circuit leading to the explosion could have been caused by a defect in the mobile phone itself, it is unlikely that a manufacturer could be exonerated from liability in cases where the replacement battery is found to be safe.

At present, the Commission does not have reason to believe that the manufacturer in question is acting in a way that is bad for competition. His current position seems to be driven by the need to defend himself against allegations regarding the safety of his phones. However, the Commission will raise the matter in its regular dialogue with industry so as to ensure that there is a competitive market in safe replacement batteries for mobile phones.

(1) See page 474.

(2) OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999, OJ L 141, 4.6.1999.