CELEX: 62020CA0065
Language: en
Date: 2021-06-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-65/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — VI v KRONE — Verlag Gesellschaft mbH & Co KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Liability for defective products — Directive 85/374/EEC — Article 2 — Concept of ‘defective product’ — Copy of a printed newspaper containing inaccurate health advice — Exclusion from the directive’s scope)

26.7.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 297/12
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — VI v KRONE — Verlag Gesellschaft mbH & Co KG
      (Case C-65/20) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Liability for defective products - Directive 85/374/EEC - Article 2 - Concept of ‘defective product’ - Copy of a printed newspaper containing inaccurate health advice - Exclusion from the directive’s scope)
      (2021/C 297/10)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Referring court
      
      Oberster Gerichtshof
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: VI
      
         Defendant: KRONE — Verlag Gesellschaft mbH & Co KG
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      Article 2 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, as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999, read in the light of Articles 1 and 6 thereof, as amended by Directive 1999/34, must be interpreted as meaning that a copy of a printed newspaper that, concerning paramedical matters, gives inaccurate health advice relating to the use of a plant which, when followed, has proved injurious to the health of a reader of that newspaper, does not constitute a ‘defective product’ within the meaning of those provisions.
      
         (1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.