The European Union (EU) has not enacted a coherent and fully-fledged product liability regime. At the substantive level, the Product Liability Directive – adopted in 1985 – is the only piece of legislation harmonising the laws of the Member States. At the private international law level, the special choice-of-laws provision in the Rome II Regulation coexists with the general rules in the Brussels I-bis Regulation. Cross-border product liability cases are therefore subject to different pieces of legislation containing either “general” or “specific” provisions. In turn, such general and specific provisions do have their own rationales which, simplistically, can be inspired by “pro-consumer”, “pro-producer”, or more “balanced” considerations, or can be completely “indifferent” to consumer protection. This article examines the interactions between the Directive, the Rome II and the Brussels I-bis Regulations in cross-border product liability cases. The aim of this article is to assess whether the piecemeal regime existing at the EU level risks undermining the protection of EU consumers. The analysis demonstrates that the regime is quite effective in guaranteeing an adequate level of consumer protection, but reforms are needed, especially to address liability claims involving non-EU manufacturers or claims otherwise connected to third States, without requiring a complete overhaul of the EU product liability regime.

中文翻译：

---

产品责任和对欧盟消费者的保护：是时候进行认真的重新评估了吗？

欧洲联盟（EU）尚未制定统一且完整的产品责任制度。在实体层面上，1985年通过的《产品责任指令》是唯一与成员国法律保持一致的立法。在国际私法层面上，《罗马二世条例》中的特殊法律选择规定与《布鲁塞尔一之二》条例中的一般规则并存。因此，跨境产品责任案件受制于包含“一般”或“特定”条款的不同法律。反过来，这些一般性和特定性条款的确有其自身的原理，这些原理可以简单地从“亲消费者”，“亲生产者”或更平衡的考虑中得到启发，或者可以完全“无视”消费者保护。 。本文研究了跨境产品责任案件中的指令，罗马II和布鲁塞尔I-bis法规之间的相互作用。本文的目的是评估欧盟现有的零星制度是否有可能损害对欧盟消费者的保护。分析表明，该制度在保证足够水平的消费者保护方面非常有效，但是需要进行改革，尤其是解决涉及非欧盟制造商的责任索赔或与第三国有关的索赔，而无需彻底检查欧盟产品责任制度。本文的目的是评估欧盟现有的零星制度是否有可能损害对欧盟消费者的保护。分析表明，该制度在保证足够水平的消费者保护方面非常有效，但是需要进行改革，尤其是解决涉及非欧盟制造商的责任索赔或与第三国有关的索赔，而无需彻底检查欧盟产品责任制度。本文的目的是评估欧盟现有的零星制度是否有可能损害对欧盟消费者的保护。分析表明，该制度在保证足够水平的消费者保护方面非常有效，但是需要进行改革，尤其是解决涉及非欧盟制造商的责任索赔或与第三国有关的索赔，而无需彻底检查欧盟产品责任制度。