CELEX: C2000/163/09
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-10 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 March 2000 in Case C-435/98 P: Sari Kristiina Jouhki v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Notice of competition — Refusal of admission to competition — Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)

C 163/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        10.6.2000
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (Second Chamber)
                                                                           1. declare that
                         of 30 March 2000
                                                                               — by including, in Article 3 of Law No 98-389 of
in Case C-435/98 P: Sari Kristiina Jouhki v Commission of                           19.5.1998 (1), damage of less than ECU 500;
                 the European Communities (1)
(Appeal — Officials — Notice of competition — Refusal of                       — by considering, in Article 8 of that law, that the
admission to competition — Manifestly inadmissible and                              distributor of a defective product is liable in all cases
                         unfounded appeal)                                          and on the same basis as the manufacturer;
                          (2000/C 163/09)
                                                                               — by providing, in the second paragraph of Article 13 of
                                                                                    that law, that the producer must prove that he took
                   (Language of the case: Finnish)                                  appropriate measures to prevent the consequences of
                                                                                    a defective product in order to rely on the defences
                                                                                    provided for by Article 7(d) and (e) of the Directive;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                               the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                               Articles 9, 3(3) and 7 of Directive 85/374/EEC (2).
In Case C-435/98 P: Sari Kristiina Jouhki, nurse, residing at
Pyhäjärvi (Finland), represented by H. Ojala, of the Oulu Bar
— appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance               2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 16 Sep-
tember 1998 in Case T-215/97 Jouhki v Commission [1998]
ECR-SC I-A-503 and II-1513, seeking to have that judgment
set aside, the other party to the proceedings being the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Paasi-                  Pleas in law and main arguments
virta and F. Duvieusart-Clotuche) — the Court (Second Cham-
ber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the
Chamber, G. Hirsch and V. Skouris, Judges; G. Cosmas,                      — Breach of Article 9 of Directive 85/374/EEC: the Directive
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                    gives the Member States no discretion to depart from the
30 March 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:                      wording of Article 9 in respect of the threshold. Article 13
                                                                               does not constitute a minimum clause which would allow
1. The appeal is dismissed.                                                    a national legislature to provide for strict liability in respect
                                                                               of defective products, which is more stringent than the
2. Ms Jouhki is to pay the costs.                                              provisions of the Directive. That does not prevent France
                                                                               from applying its own laws on the guarantee in respect of
                                                                               hidden defects or on criminal liability for damage not
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.
                                                                               covered by the Directive, as in the case of damage of less
                                                                               than ECU 500.
                                                                           — Breach of Article 3(3) of Directive 85/374/EEC: under
                                                                               Article 8 of Law No 98-389 the supplier is deemed
                                                                               equivalent to the producer whereas under Article 3(3) of
Action brought on 17 February 2000 by the Commission                           the Directive a supplier is only liable in the alternative,
of the European Communities against the French Republic                        where a producer is unknown. Contrary to the statements
                                                                               of the French Government, bringing an action against a
                           (Case C-52/00)                                      supplier who relies on a producer’s guarantee is not
                                                                               equivalent to a victim’s bringing an action directly against
                                                                               a producer. Article 3(3) of the Directive is intended to
                          (2000/C 163/10)                                      prevent inappropriate or improper actions against a sup-
                                                                               plier who can only be called into question if the consumer
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                   has given him an opportunity to inform him of the identity
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 February                    of the supplier before any action is brought. Moreover, an
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            action brought directly against a producer generally allows
represented by Maria Patakia and Bernard Mongin of its Legal                   a remedy to be obtained, if necessary, within the jurisdic-
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                      tion where the applicant resides if the victim can be
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner                   considered to be a consumer within the meaning of
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                             Articles 13 and 14 of the Brussels Convention.