Product liability in the Netherlands is governed by articles 6:185 to 6:193 of the Dutch Civil Code, which implement the European product liability directive. The producer is liable for damage caused by a defect in its product without the injured party having to prove any fault: it is enough to establish the defect, the damage and the causal link between them. Personal injury and death are compensable in full; damage to other property is compensable where that property is intended for private use, subject to a statutory threshold of 500 euro.
That is the strict liability regime, and it sits alongside two other routes: a contractual claim against the seller and a claim in tort against anyone whose carelessness caused the harm. Which route you take determines what you can recover and from whom, and the choice is often decided by the type of loss rather than by the type of product. This article sets out how the regime works, who can be held liable, what can be claimed, which defences exist, which authorities supervise product safety, how collective claims are run, and what changes when the new European directive is implemented in Dutch law.
The legal framework and the three routes to compensation
The strict liability regime in articles 6:185 and following of the Civil Code applies to movable products, including electricity and components incorporated into other goods, and it now covers primary agricultural products as well. Immovable property is outside it, and so are services. The regime is mandatory: liability towards the injured party cannot be excluded or limited by contract, which is a fundamental difference from ordinary commercial liability, where takmörkun ábyrgðar clauses do a great deal of work.
The second route is contractual. A buyer whose product does not conform to the contract has a claim against the seller, and in a consumer sale the statutory conformity rules are strongly protective: the goods must possess the qualities the buyer was entitled to expect, and remedies run from repair or replacement to price reduction and termination. This route also covers pure economic loss, which the strict liability regime does not, but it only works against the party you contracted with. Where a defect was concealed at the time of sale, the position is set out in our article on seller liability for hidden defects, and the wider consumer framework in Neytendavernd í hollenskum samningum.
The third route is tort under article 6:162 of the Civil Code. It requires unlawful conduct that can be attributed to the defendant, and it is the route used where the strict liability regime does not reach: pure economic loss, damage to goods used professionally, claims against a party who is not a producer, or claims brought after the ten-year expiry period of the strict regime. For businesses the general picture is set out in company liability in Dutch law and in our overview of liability in Dutch law.
The three routes can be combined in one claim, and they often are. A consumer injured by an exploding appliance can sue the producer under the strict regime for the injury, the seller under the contract for the price of the appliance itself, and either of them in tort where the facts support it. The damage to the product itself, incidentally, is never recoverable under the strict liability regime; that is a contractual matter.
When is a product defective?
A product is defective if it does not offer the safety that a person is entitled to expect, taking all circumstances into account. The statute names three in particular: the presentation of the product, the use that can reasonably be expected of it, and the moment it was put into circulation. Safety is the test, not quality: a machine that breaks down constantly is a contractual problem, while a machine that injures the operator is a product liability problem.
Dutch and European practice distinguishes three kinds of defect. A manufacturing defect is a deviation in an individual item from the intended design. A design defect affects the whole series, because the design itself creates an avoidable danger. An instruction or warning defect exists where the product is safe in itself but is supplied without the information needed to use it safely, or with warnings that are unclear, absent in the language of the market, or buried in a manual nobody reads. In practice the third category produces a large share of claims, and it is the one manufacturers most often underestimate.
Reasonably expected use includes foreseeable misuse. A ladder is expected to be used on uneven ground occasionally, a child product is expected to be handled by children, and a kitchen appliance is expected to be operated by someone who has not read the manual. A product does not become defective merely because a better or safer product was later put on the market; the statute says so expressly, and the moment of putting into circulation is therefore the reference point for the whole assessment.
Compliance with safety standards is relevant but not conclusive. Meeting the harmonised standards and carrying a CE marking is evidence that the producer acted with care, and it will often be the first thing an expert looks at, yet a court can still find a product defective despite full compliance. Conversely, breach of a mandatory safety requirement is a strong indicator of defectiveness and can also found a claim in tort. Businesses that want to understand the regulatory side should read our overview of tegundir lagalegrar samræmingar and, for products subject to restrictions or bans, forbidden products and the legal risks.
Who can be held liable
The primary addressee is the producer: the manufacturer of a finished product, the producer of a raw material and the manufacturer of a component part. Anyone who presents themselves as the producer by putting their name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product is treated as the producer as well, which is the trap that catches private-label retailers and brand owners who outsource all their manufacturing.
Anyone who imports a product into the European Economic Area in the course of business is likewise treated as a producer. This is deliberate: it guarantees that an injured party always has a defendant inside the European Union, and it means that a Dutch importer of goods from outside the Union carries the full strict liability of the foreign factory. Importers who assume that a supply contract with an indemnity solves this are mistaken, because the indemnity only works if the foreign supplier is solvent and can actually be sued.
Where the producer cannot be identified, each supplier in the chain is treated as the producer unless the supplier informs the injured party, within a reasonable period, of the identity of the producer or of the party that supplied it. That is why the traceability of your supply chain is not an administrative nicety but a liability question: a retailer who cannot say where the goods came from becomes the defendant. Where several parties are liable for the same damage, they are jointly and severally liable towards the injured party and settle the internal apportionment between themselves afterwards.
Online sales have widened the field. A marketplace that imports or brands the goods it sells is a producer on the ordinary rules, and under the new European directive fulfilment service providers and, in defined circumstances, online platforms are drawn into the chain of parties who can be addressed where no producer or importer in the Union can be identified. For corporate groups the question of who within the organisation bears the exposure also arises, which is where the rules on personal liability of directors og á liability of shareholders koma við sögu.
Það sem þú getur krafist
The strict liability regime covers two categories of damage. The first is damage caused by death or personal injury, which is compensable without any threshold and includes medical costs, loss of income, the cost of care and household help, travel expenses to treatment, and the cost of adapting a home where an injury is permanent. Non-material damage for pain and suffering is recoverable as part of personal injury compensation, assessed on the severity of the injury, its permanence and its effect on daily life; awards in the Netherlands are set by reference to established case law and are more conservative than in some other jurisdictions. Our article on compensation for non-material damage explains how that assessment is made.
The second category is damage to property other than the defective product itself, and here two conditions apply: the damaged item must be of a kind ordinarily intended for private use or consumption and must have been used by the injured party mainly for private purposes, and a threshold of 500 euro applies, which functions as a deductible. Damage to goods used professionally therefore falls outside the strict regime, and a business that suffers property damage has to rely on contract or tort.
What the strict regime does not cover is pure economic loss: lost profit, business interruption, the cost of a recall, or the diminished value of a production run. A manufacturer whose production line stops because a supplied component was defective has a substantial claim, but it is a contractual claim against the supplier, or a claim in tort, not a product liability claim. That distinction determines the limitation period, the burden of proof and the available defences, so it should be made at the outset rather than after a writ has been issued. Guidance on quantifying and pursuing such claims is set out in our pages on how to claim damages in the Netherlands og á kröfur um skaðabætur.
Punitive damages do not exist in Dutch law. Compensation is intended to put the injured party in the position they would have been in without the damage, and nothing more. Contributory fault reduces the award in proportion to the extent that the injured party own conduct contributed to the damage; the fault of a third party, by contrast, does not reduce the producer liability towards the injured party.
Proving the claim, and the deadlines that end it
The injured party bears the burden of proving the defect, the damage and the causal link, and does not have to prove negligence. That is a lighter burden than it looks in a straightforward case and a heavy one in a technically complex case, which is why evidence should be secured immediately. Keep the product itself, unrepaired and unaltered; photograph it in place before anything is moved; keep the packaging, the manual and the receipt; obtain medical records and keep a note of every cost; and identify witnesses while their memory is fresh. A product that has been thrown away or repaired is often the end of the claim.
Technical evidence usually decides these cases. A court can appoint an independent expert, and a party can also apply for a preliminary expert report or a preliminary examination of witnesses before proceedings are started, which is a useful way to test a case before committing to it; our article on preliminary examination in Dutch civil procedure explains that route. Since the reform of the law of evidence that took effect on 1 January 2025, a party can also request inspection of specific documents held by the other side, and several preliminary measures can be requested in a single application.
Two periods run in parallel and both are strict. A claim under the strict liability regime must be brought within three years of the day on which the injured party became aware, or should reasonably have become aware, of the damage, the defect and the identity of the producer. Independently of that, the right itself expires ten years after the producer put the specific product into circulation, and that period cannot be interrupted by a letter: only legal proceedings, or a recognised equivalent step, stop it. Claims in contract or tort follow the general rule of article 3:310 of the Civil Code, with a five-year period from awareness and an absolute limit of twenty years, and there a written interruption notice under article 3:317 is enough to keep the claim alive.
How a claim runs in practice
Most claims start with a letter holding the producer or seller liable, describing the product, the incident, the damage and the basis of the claim, and interrupting the limitation period. In practice the letter reaches the liability insurer, and the discussion continues with the insurer rather than with the company. Insurers investigate, often appoint their own expert, and settle where the file is strong; a well-documented claim with photographs, an expert report and quantified losses is settled far more often than a claim consisting of assertions.
If no settlement is reached, proceedings are brought before the district court where the defendant has its seat or, for consumers, before the court of their own place of residence, which is a rule of jurisdiction that also holds in cross-border cases within the European Union. Consumer claims below the statutory limit are heard by the subdistrict court, where representation by a lawyer is not required. The procedure is largely written, with a hearing at which the court questions the parties and often explores a settlement; appeal lies to the court of appeal, and on points of law to the Supreme Court, as explained in our article on áfrýjun til Hæstaréttar. The general course of Dutch proceedings is set out in our overview of Dutch litigation law.
Costs deserve attention before the writ is drafted. The losing party pays a standard, not a full, contribution to the other side legal costs, and expert reports are a substantial expense that usually has to be advanced. Legal expenses insurance covers many consumer claims, and subsidised legal aid may be available depending on income. For businesses, weighing litigation against negotiation is the first strategic decision, and our page on business dispute resolution sets out the alternatives. Where several people were harmed by the same product, a collective route may be cheaper and stronger than an individual one; our guide to liability claims og síðan okkar á claiming compensation cover the practical steps.
The defences a producer can raise
The statute lists the defences exhaustively, and each of them has to be proved by the producer. The producer is not liable if it did not put the product into circulation, for example where goods were stolen or distributed without its consent. Nor is it liable if the defect did not exist at the time the product was put into circulation, or came into being afterwards; damage caused by wear, by unauthorised modification or by another party in the chain falls here.
A producer is also not liable where the product was neither manufactured for sale or any form of distribution for economic purpose, nor manufactured or distributed in the course of its business, and not liable where the defect is due to compliance with mandatory regulations issued by the public authorities. A manufacturer of a component escapes liability if the defect is attributable to the design of the product into which the component was fitted, or to the instructions given by the manufacturer of that product.
The most discussed defence is the development risk defence: the producer is not liable if the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time the product was put into circulation was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered. The test is objective and measured against the most advanced knowledge accessible anywhere, not against what the individual producer knew or could afford to research, which makes the defence narrower than it first appears. The Netherlands has retained this defence, and the Dutch legislature has indicated that it intends to retain it under the new directive as well.
Finally, liability towards the injured party cannot be excluded or limited by contract, and a clause purporting to do so is void. Within the supply chain, however, contractual allocation is possible and normal: indemnities, caps, quality specifications, insurance obligations and audit rights are how a manufacturer manages the risk that arrives from its suppliers. Those clauses are worth reviewing against the new directive, because the range of parties who can be addressed is widening.
Product safety supervision and recalls
Liability is only one half of the picture; the other half is public product safety law, which imposes duties before anyone is injured. The General Product Safety Regulation (EU) 2023/988 has applied since 13 December 2024 and replaced the earlier general product safety directive. It requires that only safe products be placed on the market, imposes traceability and documentation duties, allocates responsibilities across manufacturers, importers, distributors and online marketplaces, and requires that every product placed on the Union market has a responsible economic operator established in the Union. Sector-specific rules, such as those for machinery, toys, medical devices and radio equipment, apply on top of it, and in the Netherlands the Commodities Act (Warenwet) and its decrees form the national layer.
Supervision is divided between authorities. The Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) is the main supervisor for food and consumer products; it inspects, investigates complaints, demands information, orders corrective measures and can impose administrative fines, and serious cases can be dealt with under criminal law, as described in our article on the criminal law side of the NVWA. The Health and Youth Care Inspectorate (IGJ) supervises medicines and medical devices, the Dutch Authority for Digital Infrastructure (RDI) supervises radio and telecommunications equipment, the Netherlands Labour Authority supervises work equipment and machinery in the workplace alongside the wider duties described in our overview of Hollensk vinnulöggjöf, and the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) covers transport and environmental products. The Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) supervises commercial practices and platform obligations. Fines and penalty levels are set out in policy rules that are revised periodically, so the amount applicable in a given case should be checked against the current version rather than against a figure quoted in an article.
Producers and importers who know or ought to know that a product they have placed on the market is unsafe must notify the competent authorities without delay, through the Union notification portal, and must take corrective action. Notification is required even where the product has not yet reached consumers. The file should identify the product, the batch or serial numbers, the risk, the number of items affected and the measures taken, and it must be retained for the period prescribed by the applicable rules.
A recall is executed towards the whole chain and towards consumers. Distribution is stopped, business customers and platforms are instructed to withdraw the product, and consumers are informed through the channels that actually reach them, including a direct approach where customer details are known. A recall notice must be recognisable as a safety warning, describe the product with images, explain the risk in plain language and state what the consumer should do. Consumers must be offered an effective remedy, in principle a choice of at least two of repair, replacement and refund, and the trader collects products that cannot reasonably be returned. Cooperation with the supervising authority continues until the risk is resolved, and the corrective measures and their effectiveness have to be reported. Businesses that want to prepare for this in advance should look at our uppfylling á reglugerðum styðja.
Collective claims and mass damage
Where the same product harms many people, Dutch law offers one of the most developed collective redress systems in Europe. Under the Act on the Settlement of Mass Damages in Collective Actions (WAMCA), in force since 1 January 2020, a foundation or association that meets strict requirements as to governance, funding, representativeness and independence can bring a collective action for damages on behalf of a defined group. It applies to events that took place on or after 15 November 2016; for older events the previous regime applies, under which a collective action could seek a declaration or an injunction but not monetary damages.
The procedure has a fixed shape. Actions are registered in a central register, a waiting period allows other organisations to bring competing actions, and the court appoints one exclusive representative for the group. The court then decides admissibility and, if the action proceeds, injured parties resident in the Netherlands are bound unless they opt out within the period the court sets, while parties resident abroad generally have to opt in. The parties are expected to attempt a settlement, and a settlement approved by the court binds the group in the same way. Alongside this, a settlement reached outside proceedings can be declared universally binding by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal under the collective settlement act, a procedure that has been used for internationally dispersed groups.
Other structures exist for bundling claims, in particular assignment models, in which claimants transfer their claims to a special purpose vehicle that litigates in its own name, and mandate models, in which the claimant keeps the claim and gives a power of attorney. Dutch courts have accepted these constructions in large commercial cases, though they scrutinise the funding arrangements and the position of the individual claimants. The European directive on representative actions has been implemented in Dutch law, which strengthens the position of qualified entities acting for consumers, including in cross-border cases. Our page on sameiginlegar kröfur í málum um fjöldatjón sets out how to join or start such an action.
What changes under the new Product Liability Directive
Directive (EU) 2024/2853 replaces the 1985 directive and has to be transposed by the Member States by 9 December 2026. The Dutch implementing bill has been through consultation and the advisory stage; until the implementing act takes effect the existing articles of the Civil Code continue to apply, and the new rules will apply to products placed on the market after the date the implementing legislation sets. Products placed on the market before that date remain governed by the current regime, so both frameworks will run side by side for years.
The changes are substantial. Software is expressly a product, whether embedded or standalone, and so are digital manufacturing files; related digital services that are integrated into a product fall within the scope as well. A party that substantially modifies a product outside the control of the original producer, including through a software update, can itself be treated as the producer of the modified product. Defectiveness expressly takes into account the effect of learning and updating functions, of cybersecurity requirements and of the failure to supply security updates.
The circle of liable parties widens: alongside manufacturers, importers and own-branders, the authorised representative, the fulfilment service provider and, in defined circumstances, the online platform can be addressed where no economic operator established in the Union can be identified. Procedurally, courts can order the disclosure of relevant evidence held by the producer, and rebuttable presumptions of defectiveness and of causation apply in defined situations, including where the claimant faces excessive difficulties in proving a technically complex case. The 500 euro threshold for property damage disappears, the option for Member States to cap total liability goes, damage to data and medically recognised psychological harm become compensable, and the long-stop period is extended to twenty-five years for personal injury that manifests only after a long period.
For businesses this means the documentation you keep today determines your position in a claim brought years from now. Technical files, risk assessments, test results, batch traceability, complaint registers and the record of security updates are what a disclosure order will reach, and their absence is what a presumption will fill. Reviewing supplier contracts, insurance cover and the internal record-keeping now is considerably cheaper than reconstructing it under a court order.
Where product liability claims arise most often
Certain sectors generate a disproportionate share of claims, and each has its own evidential pattern. Food and beverages produce claims about contamination, allergens and incorrect labelling, where traceability of the batch and the results of the producer own quality checks usually decide the case. Medicines and medical devices produce claims about side effects, materials and instructions, in which the file of the notified body, the periodic safety reporting and the information supplied to the patient are central, and where the supervising inspectorate is often already involved before the civil claim starts.
Electrical appliances and lithium batteries produce fire and burn claims, in which the fire brigade report and a technical investigation of the remains of the product are decisive; this is the category in which discarding the damaged product ends the claim most often. Vehicles and vehicle components produce claims where the manufacturer recall history and the diagnostic data stored in the vehicle matter more than any witness account. Toys and childcare products produce claims about small parts, chemical content and stability, judged against product-specific European standards. Machinery and tools used at work sit at the intersection of product liability and employer liability, because an injured employee usually has a claim against the employer under the employment safety duty as well as a possible claim against the producer.
Construction and installation cases require care in classification. A defective boiler, solar panel or heat pump is a product, but the installation of it is a service, and the same incident can therefore involve a producer under the strict regime, an installer under the contract and, where a building is damaged, an insurer with a right of recourse. Establishing at an early stage which loss belongs to which route saves a great deal of expense later, and it determines which limitation period you are working against.
Finally, business-to-business damage rarely fits the strict regime at all. A defective component that damages a production line causes property damage to goods used professionally and consequential loss, both of which fall outside it. The claim then rests on the supply contract, on the conformity of the goods delivered and on the general terms in force, which is why the contractual documentation, and the question of whose general terms applied, tends to determine the outcome. Our overview of Dutch litigation practice og síðan okkar á liability advice set out the steps for such a dispute.
What to do if a product has caused damage
If you were injured or your property was damaged, act in this order. Keep the product and everything that came with it, and do not have it repaired or discarded. Photograph the product and the scene. Collect the purchase receipt, the manual, the packaging and any correspondence with the seller. See a doctor and make sure the injury and its cause are recorded in your medical file, because the medical record is often the only contemporaneous document about causation. Note down what happened while you remember it, and take the details of anyone who saw it.
Then hold the right party liable in writing. For a consumer that usually means the seller and, where the injury is serious, the producer or the importer as well; the letter should describe the product, the defect, the damage and the legal basis, and should expressly interrupt the limitation period. Report the incident to the supervising authority if the product is dangerous to others, because a report can also trigger the recall that protects the next user. Do not accept a settlement before the extent of an injury is clear, since a final settlement usually closes the file for good.
If you are a business facing a claim, the sequence is different. Notify your liability insurer immediately, because late notification can cost cover. Secure the internal file: production and quality records for the batch, the technical documentation, the instructions supplied, the complaint history and the distribution data. Assess whether other items in the same batch present the same risk and whether a notification and corrective action are required, and take that decision on safety grounds rather than on litigation grounds. Do not acknowledge liability before the technical position is clear, and check your contracts with suppliers and customers to see where the risk was allocated. Our ábyrgðarlögfræðingar advise on both sides of these claims.
Law & More advises consumers and businesses on product liability in the Netherlands: assessing whether a product is defective, establishing who is liable, quantifying and pursuing damages, defending claims and dealing with the supervising authorities in a recall. We act for Dutch and international clients from our offices in Eindhoven og Amsterdam. Please contact us to discuss your position and the deadlines that apply to it.
Algengar spurningar
Hollensk lög um vöruábyrgð ná yfir tilteknar tegundir bóta, setja skýr tímamörk fyrir kröfur og krefjast sérstakra sönnunargagna til að staðfesta ábyrgð framleiðanda á tjóni. Reglurnar eiga við bæði um fjárhagslegt og persónulegt tjón við skilgreind skilyrði.
Hvaða tegundir tjóns eru bótahæfar í vöruábyrgðarmálum í Hollandi?
Samkvæmt grein 6:190 í hollensku borgaralögunum er hægt að krefjast bóta fyrir líkamstjón, dauða og eignatjón í einkalífinu. Líkamstjón nær yfir allt tjón sem hlýst af meiðslum eða dauða einstaklings.
Þetta nær yfir lækniskostnað, tekjutap og kostnað vegna umönnunar og meðferðar. Eignatjón verður að uppfylla ákveðin skilyrði til að eiga rétt á bótum.
Skemmdur hlutur verður venjulega að vera ætlaður til einkanota eða neyslu. Tjónið verður að vera meira en 500 evrur til að það sé bótaskylt samkvæmt gildandi lögum.
Hreint fjárhagstjón fellur utan gildissviðs vöruábyrgðar. Ef þú ert atvinnurekandi og gölluð vél veldur framleiðslutruflunum geturðu ekki krafist bóta fyrir tapað hagnað eða kostnað vegna rekstrarstöðvunar samkvæmt reglum um vöruábyrgð.
You would need to pursue other civil liability options instead. Directive (EU) 2024/2853 removes the 500 euro threshold for property damage once it has been implemented in Dutch law.
Endurskoðunin miðar einnig að því að víkka út bótaskyld tjón til að ná yfir tap eða spillingu gagna og læknisfræðilega viðurkennt geðheilbrigðistjón.
Hvernig staðfestir maður ábyrgð framleiðanda á gallaðri vöru í Hollandi?
Þú verður að sanna þrjá nauðsynlega þætti til að framleiðandi beri ábyrgð. Í fyrsta lagi þarftu að sýna fram á að raunverulegt tjón hafi átt sér stað.
Í öðru lagi verður þú að sýna fram á að varan hafi verið gölluð samkvæmt hollenskum lögum. Í þriðja lagi verður þú að sýna fram á orsakasamhengi milli gallans og tjónsins sem þú varðst fyrir.
Vara telst gölluð þegar hún veitir ekki það öryggi sem eðlilega má búast við af henni. Dómstólar meta galla út frá aðstæðum þegar varan kom á markað.
Þrír þættir skipta máli: hvernig varan var kynnt neytendum, hvaða notkun má eðlilega búast við og hvenær varan var sett á markað. Sönnunarbyrðin krefst ekki algjörrar vissu.
Þú þarft að gera mál þitt nægilega líklegt út frá fyrirliggjandi sönnunargögnum. Flókin mál sem varða lyf, gervigreindarkerfi eða snjallvörur bjóða oft upp á áskoranir í sönnunargögnum vegna tæknilegs flækjustigs.
Hollensk lög kveða á um stranga ábyrgð á framleiðendum. Þetta þýðir að þú þarft ekki að sanna sök eða gáleysi.
Framleiðandinn ber ábyrgð einfaldlega vegna þess að varan var gölluð og olli tjóni.
Hver er fyrningarfrestur til að leggja fram kröfu um vöruábyrgð í Hollandi?
Þú hefur þrjú ár til að leggja fram kröfu um vöruábyrgð samkvæmt 3:310 grein hollensku borgaralaga. Þessi fyrningarfrestur hefst daginn eftir að þú varðst var við þrjá hluti: tjónið, gallann og hver ber ábyrgð.
Ef þú uppgötvar tjónið 1. janúar hefst þriggja ára fresturinn þinn 2. janúar. Ábyrgð á vöru rennur út tíu árum eftir að framleiðandinn setti vöruna á markað í ESB samkvæmt 6:191. grein hollensku borgaralaga.
Þetta tíu ára tímabil gildir óháð því hvort þú vissir af tjóninu eða gallanum. Þegar þessu tímabili lýkur geturðu ekki lagt fram kröfu jafnvel þótt þú hafir nýlega uppgötvað tjónið.
Þú verður að höfða mál áður en þessir frestir renna út. Þótt þú tilkynnir framleiðandanum einfaldlega um fyrirætlanir þínar um að þú ætlir að gera kröfu kemur það ekki í veg fyrir að fyrningarfresturinn renni út.
Filing a formal claim with the court protects your rights. The new Directive (EU) 2024/2853 extends the expiry period to twenty-five years for personal injury that manifests slowly.
Þessi breyting viðurkennir að sumar vörur, svo sem lyf eða lækningatæki, geta aðeins valdið heilsufarsvandamálum eftir margra ára notkun.
Eru einhverjar sérstakar reglur um öryggi og ábyrgð vöru í Hollandi?
Greinar 6:185-193 í hollensku borgaralögunum mynda meginlagalegan ramma um vöruábyrgð í Hollandi. Þessar ákvæði innleiða Evróputilskipun 85/374/EBE frá 1985 í hollenskan lög.
Tilskipunin samræmir reglur um vöruábyrgð í öllum aðildarríkjum ESB. Viðbótarlöggjöf um tilteknar atvinnugreinar setur öryggiskröfur fyrir tilteknar vörur áður en þær geta komið inn á markað í ESB.
Vélartilskipunin 2006/42/EB gildir um vélrænan búnað. Leikfangaöryggistilskipunin 2009/48/EB gildir um leikföng barna.
Tilskipunin um almenna vöruöryggi 2023/988/EB setur grunnöryggiskröfur fyrir alla vöruflokka. Fylgni við þessar öryggisreglugerðir dregur úr hættu á að vara þín reynist gölluð.
Hins vegar veitir það ekki algera ábyrgð gegn ábyrgð þótt eftirlit sé með regluverki. Dómstólar geta samt sem áður komist að þeirri niðurstöðu að vara sé gallað jafnvel þótt hún uppfylli alla lögboðna öryggisstaðla.
The European Union has adopted a new product liability directive addressing digital products and artificial intelligence, to be implemented by 9 December 2026. The proposal substantially expands the definition of “product” to include digital production files, software, AI systems, and associated digital services.
Gert er ráð fyrir að framkvæmdin fari fram á árunum 2025 til 2027.
Hvaða sönnunargögn þarf til að sanna kröfu um vöruábyrgð í Hollandi?
Þú verður að leggja fram sönnunargögn sem staðfesta þrjá kjarnaþætti: tilvist tjóns, tilvist galla og orsakasamhengi milli gallans og tjónsins. Gögn um læknismeðferð, viðgerðarreikninga eða annan kostnað vegna tjónsins styðja kröfu þína.
Sérfræðiskýrslur reynast oft nauðsynlegar til að staðfesta að varan hafi verið gölluð. Tæknileg sönnunargögn eru sérstaklega mikilvæg í flóknum málum.
Þú gætir þurft verkfræðilegt mat, efnagreiningar eða álit læknisfræðinga til að sýna fram á gallann og orsakasamhengið. Ljósmyndir af gallaða vörunni og tjóninu sem hún olli styrkja mál þitt.
Í tillögum um endurskoðun ESB eru kynntar forsendur sem eru neytendum í hag. Þegar framleiðendur geta ekki afsannað að lögboðnum öryggiskröfum sé ekki fylgt má gera ráð fyrir göllum.
Ef tegund tjónsins samsvarar venjulega þeim galla sem um ræðir má gera ráð fyrir orsakasamhengi. Framleiðendur verða að leggja fram viðeigandi sannanir fyrir kröfuhöfum við ákveðnar aðstæður samkvæmt fyrirhuguðum reglum.
Þessi upplýsingaskylda hjálpar til við að bregðast við upplýsingaójafnvæginu milli neytenda og framleiðenda. Endurskoðunin lækkar einnig sönnunarþröskuldinn í tæknilega flóknum málum.
Getur neytandi höfðað mál vegna ófjárhagslegs tjóns í hollensku vöruábyrgðarmáli?
Þú getur krafist bóta fyrir ófjárhagslegt tjón þegar það hlýst af líkamstjóni eða dauða. Hollensk lög viðurkenna sársauka og þjáningar, tap á lífsgæðum og tilfinningalega vanlíðan sem bótaskyld tjón í líkamstjónsmálum.
Þetta ófjárhagslegt tjón fellur undir víðtækari flokk bóta vegna líkamstjóns. Útreikningur á ófjárhagslegu tjóni fylgir viðurkenndum leiðbeiningum og dómaframkvæmd.
Dómstólar taka tillit til alvarleika meiðsla þinna, áhrifa á daglegt líf þitt og varanleika hugsanlegra skerðinga. Hollenskir dómstólar dæma yfirleitt íhaldssamari bætur fyrir sársauka og þjáningar samanborið við sumar aðrar lögsagnarumdæmisröð.
Ófjárhagslegt tjón sem tengist líkamstjóni fellur almennt ekki undir bætur vegna vöruábyrgðar. Ef gölluð vara virkar einfaldlega ekki rétt án þess að valda meiðslum eða tjóni á öðrum eignum er ekki hægt að krefjast vonbrigða eða óþæginda samkvæmt reglum um vöruábyrgð.
Úrræði þitt væri í staðinn ábyrgð eða samningsbundnar kröfur. Markmiðið með tillögunni um endurskoðun ESB er að fella læknisfræðilega viðurkenndan geðheilbrigðisskaða inn í bótaskyldan skaða.
Þessi útvíkkun viðurkennir að gallaðar vörur geta valdið sálrænum áföllum, auk líkamlegra meiðsla. Þegar þessi breyting hefur verið innleidd mun hún auka möguleika þína á að krefjast bóta fyrir ófjárhagslegt tjón.
