header-logo header-logo

Directive

15 January 2010
Issue: 7400 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Aventis Pasteur SA v OB; sub nom O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur SA C-358/08, [2009] All ER (D) 228 (Dec)

Article 11 of Council Directive (EEC) 85/374 precluded national legislation which allowed the substitution of one defendant for another during proceedings, from being applied in a way which permitted a “producer”, within the meaning of Art 3 of the Directive, to be sued, after the expiry of the period prescribed by that article, as defendant in proceedings brought within that period against another person.

However, first, Art 1 did not preclude a national court from holding that, in the proceedings instituted within the period prescribed by that article against the wholly-owned subsidiary of the “producer”, within the meaning of Art 3(1) of the Directive, that producer could be substituted for that subsidiary if that court found that the putting into circulation of the product in question was, in fact, determined by that producer.

Second, Art 3(3) of the Directive had to be interpreted as meaning that, where the person injured by an allegedly defective product was not reasonably able

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll