Post by account_disabled on Dec 19, 2023 1:38:57 GMT -5
Defective product means "a product which does not provide the legitimately expected safety, having taking into account all the circumstances" (case Novo Nordisk Pharma). Also, based on the principle of procedural autonomy and equivalence and effectiveness, the domestic legal order of each state must decide how to administer the evidence, what evidence is admissible, the probative force of the evidence or the necessary level of evidence (case Nike European Operations Netherlands). The principle of effectiveness requires the protection of the rights conferred by the legal order of the Union (the Steffensen case), in order not to prejudice the effectiveness of the directive.
In addition, an evidentiary regime that would exclude any country email list recourse to an evidence-based method and would require the injured party to present definite proof would not comply with the objectives of the directive because it would raise the evidentiary requirement too high and exclude another mode of proof in outside of medical research. This requirement would also jeopardize inherent in modern technological production between the injured person and the producer. However, such an evidentiary regime must not be applied by the national court in a way that would work to the detriment of the manufacturer through unjustified presumptions.
On the one hand, national courts must guarantee that the evidence presented is indeed sufficient to authorize the incrimination. On the other hand, the same courts must ensure that it is the injured person who must prove the existence of a defect in the vaccine and a causal link. Moreover, the protection of the rights of individuals depends above all on successive operations of legal qualification of the facts and that the referring court must express itself in the last instance and ensure at the national level the uniform interpretation of the legal norms (the case Traghetti del Mediterraneo). The existence of a universally valid causal link, as appears from the preliminary questions, would mean a clear disadvantage for the producer who would not be able to rebut the presumption. With regard to the first question, Article must be interpreted in the sense that it does not preclude a national evidentiary regime requiring the incrimination.
In addition, an evidentiary regime that would exclude any country email list recourse to an evidence-based method and would require the injured party to present definite proof would not comply with the objectives of the directive because it would raise the evidentiary requirement too high and exclude another mode of proof in outside of medical research. This requirement would also jeopardize inherent in modern technological production between the injured person and the producer. However, such an evidentiary regime must not be applied by the national court in a way that would work to the detriment of the manufacturer through unjustified presumptions.
On the one hand, national courts must guarantee that the evidence presented is indeed sufficient to authorize the incrimination. On the other hand, the same courts must ensure that it is the injured person who must prove the existence of a defect in the vaccine and a causal link. Moreover, the protection of the rights of individuals depends above all on successive operations of legal qualification of the facts and that the referring court must express itself in the last instance and ensure at the national level the uniform interpretation of the legal norms (the case Traghetti del Mediterraneo). The existence of a universally valid causal link, as appears from the preliminary questions, would mean a clear disadvantage for the producer who would not be able to rebut the presumption. With regard to the first question, Article must be interpreted in the sense that it does not preclude a national evidentiary regime requiring the incrimination.