风险收益与产品缺陷评估的相关性——13个欧洲法律体系的比较研究

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
Marta dos Santos Silva, D. Fairgrieve, Eleonora Rajneri, A. Keirse, P. Machnikowski, Jean-Sébastien Borghetti, P. García, Christoph Schmon, Vibe Ulbeck, Vera Vallone, Herbert Zech
{"title":"风险收益与产品缺陷评估的相关性——13个欧洲法律体系的比较研究","authors":"Marta dos Santos Silva, D. Fairgrieve, Eleonora Rajneri, A. Keirse, P. Machnikowski, Jean-Sébastien Borghetti, P. García, Christoph Schmon, Vibe Ulbeck, Vera Vallone, Herbert Zech","doi":"10.54648/erpl2021005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Under Council Directive 85/374/EEC, liability of a producer crucially depends upon the proof of a product’s defectiveness. This central notion of the Directive has however long been the source of debate regarding the extent to which it is grounded in a solely safetybased approach, or whether a risk-benefit approach may be admitted. The defectiveness concept is now subject to a growing body of case law. This article examines how the courts in a selection of Member States (MS) approach the notion of defect and take account of riskbenefit considerations in determining whether a product is defective. It aims, first, at lowering the level of complexity which was added to the definition of defect in theDirective by the discretion given to national courts on the applicable standard of liability. Second, it means to show the real level and scope of harmonization of the product liability law in the EU by revealing differences that still exist in the interpretation of seemingly harmonized laws. Third, it aims to contribute to the clarification of whether the risk-benefit test is compliant with the spirit of the Directive, and thereby informing policy makers at a time where the guidelines of interpretation of the Directive are being prepared.","PeriodicalId":43736,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Private Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Relevance of Risk-benefit for Assessing Defectiveness of a Product: A Comparative Study of Thirteen European Legal Systems\",\"authors\":\"Marta dos Santos Silva, D. Fairgrieve, Eleonora Rajneri, A. Keirse, P. Machnikowski, Jean-Sébastien Borghetti, P. García, Christoph Schmon, Vibe Ulbeck, Vera Vallone, Herbert Zech\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/erpl2021005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Under Council Directive 85/374/EEC, liability of a producer crucially depends upon the proof of a product’s defectiveness. This central notion of the Directive has however long been the source of debate regarding the extent to which it is grounded in a solely safetybased approach, or whether a risk-benefit approach may be admitted. The defectiveness concept is now subject to a growing body of case law. This article examines how the courts in a selection of Member States (MS) approach the notion of defect and take account of riskbenefit considerations in determining whether a product is defective. It aims, first, at lowering the level of complexity which was added to the definition of defect in theDirective by the discretion given to national courts on the applicable standard of liability. Second, it means to show the real level and scope of harmonization of the product liability law in the EU by revealing differences that still exist in the interpretation of seemingly harmonized laws. Third, it aims to contribute to the clarification of whether the risk-benefit test is compliant with the spirit of the Directive, and thereby informing policy makers at a time where the guidelines of interpretation of the Directive are being prepared.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Review of Private Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Review of Private Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2021005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Review of Private Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2021005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

根据理事会指令85/374/EEC,生产者的责任关键取决于产品缺陷的证明。然而,该指令的这一核心概念长期以来一直是争论的来源,争论的焦点是它在多大程度上完全基于基于安全的方法,或者是否可以承认风险-收益方法。缺陷概念现在受到越来越多的判例法的约束。本文考察了一些成员国(MS)的法院如何处理缺陷的概念,并在确定产品是否有缺陷时考虑风险利益因素。首先,它的目的是降低指令中由于国家法院在适用的责任标准上的自由裁量权而增加的缺陷定义的复杂性。其次,通过揭示看似协调一致的法律在解释上仍然存在的差异,展示欧盟产品责任法协调的真实水平和范围。第三,它的目的是有助于澄清风险-收益测试是否符合指令的精神,从而在准备指令解释指南的时候通知政策制定者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Relevance of Risk-benefit for Assessing Defectiveness of a Product: A Comparative Study of Thirteen European Legal Systems
Under Council Directive 85/374/EEC, liability of a producer crucially depends upon the proof of a product’s defectiveness. This central notion of the Directive has however long been the source of debate regarding the extent to which it is grounded in a solely safetybased approach, or whether a risk-benefit approach may be admitted. The defectiveness concept is now subject to a growing body of case law. This article examines how the courts in a selection of Member States (MS) approach the notion of defect and take account of riskbenefit considerations in determining whether a product is defective. It aims, first, at lowering the level of complexity which was added to the definition of defect in theDirective by the discretion given to national courts on the applicable standard of liability. Second, it means to show the real level and scope of harmonization of the product liability law in the EU by revealing differences that still exist in the interpretation of seemingly harmonized laws. Third, it aims to contribute to the clarification of whether the risk-benefit test is compliant with the spirit of the Directive, and thereby informing policy makers at a time where the guidelines of interpretation of the Directive are being prepared.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
33.30%
发文量
25
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信