- Proposition de la délégation autrichienne Article 2

Les termes «fabricants ou autres fournisseurs» com-prennent au sens de la présente Convention

a les personnes qui ont produit ou obtenu la marchan-dise finie;

b les personnes qui ont fourni des parties constitutives de la marchandise;

c les personnes constituant la chaîne de distribution com-merciale; et

d les transporteurs, les réparateurs et les personnes ayant la garde de la marchandise ou auxquelles celle-ci a été confiée au cours de la distribution commerciale;

à condition que le dommage par la marchandise ait été provoqué par ces personnes.

No 12 - Proposai of the Danish délégation Draft article 6, No 8, as follows

-«The burden of proof, provided that that law contains spécifie rules as to the burden of proof in cases of lia-bility as defined in article 1.»

La séance est ouverte à 10 heures sous la présidence de M . van Hecke (Belgique).

Le Rapporteur est M . Reese (Etats-Unis).

Le Président, après avoir rappelé aux Délégués qu'ils peuvent remettre par écrit les corrections qu'ils désirent voir apporter aux Procès-verbaux, déclare qu'il importe de poursuivre la discussion de l'article premier, en ce qui concerne la notion de dommage, et particulièrement le point de savoir s'il convient d'inclure dans la Conven-tion le dommage causé au produit.

Mr Schultsz (the Netherlands) said that the idea of excluding damage to the product itself was, inter alla, based on the argument that such damage was a matter that should be left to the contract. This argument was not convincing as the Commission was dealing precisely with non-contractual relationships.

A further argument had been advanced which was the practice of insurers to exclude from their cover the damage now being discussed. He was not impressed by this argument either, although he absolutely accepted the correctness of the statement as a fact. It was a common feature of many branches of insurance law, e.g. marine Insurance, to exclude latent defects, vice propre, and similar properties not related to an outside influence. The insurance position, however, could not be transplanted to the situation the Commission was facing, i.e. whether or not it was désirable to have two différent laws apply to damage outside the product and damage to the product itself.

Furthermore his practical expérience with so-called Con-struction A i l Risks Policies showed that the differentia-tion between, on the one hand, an object which had it-self been damaged as a resuit of faulty design, faulty construction and similar causes and, on the other hand, the other parts of the insured 'work' led to results which were very difficult to explain to the assured.

An additional point was that there would be difficulty in deciding whether a component part constituted a product or only part of a product.

Mr Philip (Denmark) favoured the exclusion of damage to the product from the scope of the Convention. He did not rely upon the insurance argument, but wished the Convention to be limited to choice of law rules normally regarded as falling within the ambit of the sub-stantive law of products liability, which for the most part excluded questions relating to damage to the product.

Mr Armstrong (C.E.A.) said that products liability in-surance policies invariably excluded damage to the product itself from their terms. This could be considered

as being in the consumer's interest, insofar as those manufacturers, who discovered that products which they had put on to a market had potentially dangerous defects.

had every incentive to recall such products so as to ré-medy the defect, as they knew that the defect was not covered by insurance, so that they, the manufacturers, were exposed to the économie loss involved.

Manufacturer's guarantees were normally backed by in-surance, and this protection would only be afforded by insurers after they, the insurers, had satisfied themselves that the product had been adequately tested and examin-ed before being made available to the market. I n any case it was normal practice for such guarantees to be issued for a limited period of time.

Mr Rogniien (Norway) was against including damage to the product in the Convention. It did not normally fall within the'field of products liability, and, further, if it were to be included in the Convention, the concept of damage to the product was not apt to cover all cases of defects in a product, since some defects did not cause damage to the property, while others did. The inclusion of damage to the product in the Convention would there-fore be likely to produce arbitrary and irrational distinc-tions.

Mr De Nova (Italy) was against restricting the scope of the Convention by criteria relating to the subject-matter, such as the type of product, the kind of damage, or the sort of person or thing affected by the damage.

Mr Aranne (Israël) said that the suggested distinction between damage caused by a product and damage caused to a product gave rise to practical difficulties, particular-ly where an accident caused physical injury or damage to other property in addition to damage to itself. In Israël tortious and contractual liability were concurrent, subject, of course, to the rule. against double recovery pf damages. Accordingly, it was désirable from Israel's point of view that the Convention's choice of law rules should govern both tortious and contractual liability, since otherwise the plaintiff would have to prove one foreign law in respect of his tortious action and a différ-ent foreign law in respect of his contractual action.

Accordingly, on practical grounds and for reasons of simplicity of proof, he favoured the inclusion of damage to the product within the scope of the Convention. He was not impressed by the argument based on products liability insurance policies, since the Convention did not impose any obligation on insurers to insure in respect of such liability. In Israeli domestic law there was no question of any tortious liability in the case of a defect-ive product unless the product caused physical injury or damage to other property. He would not, however, oppose a réservation being made available to those States which wished to exclude such damage from the Conven-tion.

M. Kuccra (Tchécoslovaquie) souligne que le dommage doit être considéré comme un tout qui se traduit par une perte dans le patrimoine de la personne lésée. Aussi n'y a-t-il pas de raison de traiter le dommage causé au produit d'une manière différente.

The Rapporteur said that he favoured the inclusion of damage to the product within the Convention for the reasons given by the Chairman on the previous day and the reasons just advanced by Mr Aranne. He gave as an example the case of a car accident caused by defective brakes in which the driver was injured and the-car was damaged, and said that it would be unfortunate if the

Convention covered the law applicable to the injury to the driver but not to the damage to the car. Such a distinction would be artif icial and unnecessarily complex.

Mr Lorenz (Germany) said that the fundamental question facing the Commission was whether it ought to départ from fundamental and well-established concepts of private international law. The problem was whether the Convention should apply to cases in which a person bought a defective product and suffered no damage other than a diminution in the value of the product by reason of its defective nature; such cases would normally involve the possibility of an action for a diminution of the price for the product.

The Rapporteur said that the type of case given by Mr Lorenz would not necessarily involve tortious liability, at any rate where there were no misrepresentations by the défendant.

Mr Lorenz (Germany) said that that was exactly his point. Such cases ought to be Hmited to the field of con-tract. He feared, though, that they seemed to fall within the Convention as the text now stood.

Le Président se demande s'il ne conviendrait pas de considérer que les dommages causés au produit sont couverts par la Convention, à condition que ces dom-mages soient accompagnés d'un dommage causé à autre chose.

The Rapporteur said that he was against the gênerai exclusion of damage to the product from the Convention.

He would make a distinction between the case where the defect caused physical damage to the product in question, which he thought ought to be within the Convention, and the case where the defect simply caused a diminution in the value of the product.

Mr Rogniien (Norway) said that the solution to the problem might lie in the word 'accident' found in articles 3 and 4. It would be hard to draw the line between defects in products causing damage to the product in an accident and defects causing such damage outside an accident. There was no logic in drawing such a line, nor was there any logic in saying that the Convention was to apply in cases of damage .to the product where there was also additional damage to persons or to other property but not in other cases.

Mr Anton (United Kingdom) said that it had not oc-curred to the United Kingdom Government that the Convention was intehded to cover damage to the product.

If such damage were to be included, it might defeat the in-ternai policy of various countries with regard to products liability. He realized that to include liability for damage to the product in the Convention did not necessarily mean that the défendant would be liable for such damage:

it merely meant that the choice of law rules selected by the Convention would be applicable to the question. Yet the Commission had not given sufficiently full considér-ation to all the possible repercussions of the inclusion of damage to propérty within the scope of the Convention;

and he would therefore treat the question of its inclusion with the gredtest reserve.

M. Gonzalez Campos (Espagne) relève que le point de savoir si les dommages causés au produit doivent être

Procès-verbal No 3 Procès-verbal'No 3 145

inclus dans la Convention ne figurait pas dans le question-naire envoyé aux Gouvernements. Par ailleurs, comme hier les Délégués se sont "prononcés en faveur de l'in-clusion des produits agricoles dans la Convention, qu'en sera-t-il de ces produits, s'agissant du dommage qui peut leur être causé? Des questions difficiles de preuve ris-quent de se poser.

D'autre part, il est des secteurs du commerce international, par exemple les machines-outils, où le dommage causé au produit est loin d'être indifférent. Comme par ailleurs on ne sait pas encore si le domaine contractuel sera exclu de la Convention et si celle-ci traitera de l'action directe, le Délégué espagnol pense que le débat actuel est préma-turé et qu'il faudrait se garder de restreindre abusive-ment le champ d'application de la Convention.

M. de Winter (Président de la Douzième session) constate que les Délégués ont des opinions très divergentes sur une question finalement secondaire. Aussi bien serait-il plus sage d'exclure expressément du champ d'application de la Convention les dommages causés aux produits, afin de ne pas rendre inutilement difficile à certains Etats l'adhésion à la Convention.

Mr Aranne (Israël) asked if a possible solution, ex-cluding from the Convention only damage caused by non-conformity of the product with the terms under which it was acquired, should be put to the vote.

The Rapporteur agreed that there were two intermedi-ate positions. He distinguished between the following two possibilities: a that the Convention should cover only cases where in addition to damage to the product itself there was also physical injury to persons or damage to other property; b that the Convention should include cases of physical damage to the product itself, even where there was no physical injury or damage to other property, in an accident or sudden occurrence.

Le Président remarque que, s'agissant des dommages causés au produit, quatre solutions peuvent être en-visagées:

1 l'exclusion totale du champ d'application de la Convention des dommages causés au produit;

2 l'inclusion totale de ces dommages;

3 l'inclusion des dommages causés au produit, à condi-tion qu'en même temps des dommages aient été causés à un autre objet ou à une autre personne;

4 l'inclusion des dommages causés au produit, si un dommage physique a été causé au bien à la suite d'un défaut et non pas seulement du fait de l'existence du caractère défectueux du produit.

Le Président met aux voix l'exclusion totale du champ d'application de la Convention des dommages causés au produit.

Vote

Par 13 voix (Belgique, Canada, Espagne, Etats-Unis, Finlande, France, Grèce, Irlande, Israël, Italie, Japon, Luxembourg, Tchécoslovaquie) contre 5 (Allemagne, Autriche, Danemark, Norvège, Royaume-Uni) et 5 abstentions (Pays-Bas, Portugal, Suède, Suisse, Yougo-slavie), les Délégués rejettent l'exclusion totale de la Convention des dommages causés au produit.

Le Président met ensuite aux voix l'inclusion totale dans le champ d'application de la Convention des dom-mages causés au produit.

Vote

Par 12 voix (Allemagne, Autriche, Canada, Danemark;

Etats-Unis, Finlande, France, Grèce, Israël, Norvège, Portugal, Suède) contre 6 voix (Belgique, Espagne, Irlande, Italie, Luxembourg, Tchécoslovaquie) et 5 abstentions (Japon, Pays-Bas, Royaume-Uni, Suisse, Yougoslavie) les Délégués se prononcent contre l'in-clusion totale dans la Convention des dommages causés au produit.

Le Président demande alors aux Délégués de choisir entre la troisième et la quatrième des solutions sus-inentionnées, à savoir l'inclusion des dommages causés au produit si en même temps un dommage a été causé à un autre objet ou à une autre personne, ou l'inclusion des dommages causés au produit pour autant qu'il s'agisse d'un dommage physique causé au bien à la suite d'un défaut et non pas seulement du fait de l'existence du caractère défectueux du produit lui-même;

Vote

Par 11 voix (Belgique, Grèce, Italie, Japon, Norvège, Pays-Bas, Portugal, Royaume-Uni, Suisse,

Tchécoslova-quie, Yougoslavie) contre 10 (Canada, . Danemark, Espagne, Etats-Unis, Finlande, France, Irlande, Israël, Luxembourg, Suède) et 2 abstentions (Allemagne, Autriche) les Délégués se prononcent pour la première de ces deux solutions.

Le Président ouvre ensuite la discussion sur le point de savoir s'il convient de limiter le champ d'application de la Convention à certaines catégories de dommages, ainsi que le propose la délégation du Royaume-Uni dans le Document de travail No 4.

Mr Anton (United Kingdom) said that 'product' might refer to any immovable or part of an immovable, such as part of a prefabricated building or a fixture in a building. Was it the intention of the Commission to include such products within the Convention, or was it proposed that they should be left to be governed by the lex situs in accordance with traditional theory?

Referring to the proposai made in Working Document No 4, he said that 'goods' limited the application of the Convention to movables.

Le Président observe que les remarques de M . Anton visent davantage les produits eux-mêmes que le dom-mage.

Mr Anton (United Kingdom) commented that there might also be a question of damage to an immovable as well as by an immovable.

M. Edibacher (Autriche), faisant allusion au Document de travail No 10, explique pourquoi il convient de rem-placer le mot «produit» par l'expression «marchandise».

En effet, comme le «produit» suppose un processus quelconque d'élaboration, mais qu'on veut inclure aussi par exemple l'eau minérale pure, il faut trouver une autre expression. La «marchandise» est plus large et conforme à l'esprit du projet de Convention parce qu'on y parle d'une chaîne de distribution commerciale.

Le Président remarque qu'il s'agit là d'une question de rédaction.

Mr Rognlien (Norway) said that it would very much simplify the work of the Commission if the Convention

were limited to movables. I f immovables were to be included, it might be necessary to have spécial rules for them other than those of articles 3 to 5.

Accordingly, in agreement with Mr Anton, he favoured the exclusion of immovables from the Convention, for simplicity's sake. Immovables did not usually raise problems of great international significance.

Mme Delvaux (Belgique) pense que deux solutions sont possibles. Ou bien limiter la Convention aux meu-bles, avec tous les inconvénients qui découleraient de cette solution pour les pays dont, les droits connaissent des immeubles par destination (machines par exemple).

Où bien distinguer entre les meubles et les immeubles quant au choix de la loi applicable, étant entendu que l'on pourrait songer à la lex loci delicti pour les im-meubles.

Mr Philip (Denmark) said that although it might be simpler to exclude immovable property from the Con-vention, such exclusion would raise questions of inter-prétation. It might be difficult to agrée on what was meant by immovables. Was a machine fixed to a factory floor or a uranium extractor in a factory producing nu-clear energy a movable or immovable? I f there was to be an exclusion of immovables, the meaning of the exclusion must be made absolutely clear.

Mr Anton (United Kingdom) said that it was common form to leave the characterization whether a product

was movable or not, to the lex siius. He did not think that the problem was an important one.

The Rapporteur disagreed with Mr Anton. Such things as a boiler attach'ed to a house ought to be within the scope of the Convention. Anyway, the situs was not a good Connecting factor for the purpose of characteriz-ation of a product as a movable or an immovable.

Mr Anton (United Kingdom) said that the question which law should charaoterize property as movable or immovable was immaterial, so long as it was clear which law governed the question.

Mr De Nova (Italy) said that there was no need to restrict the scope of the Convention by excluding im-movables; nor was there any need for spécial rules re-lating to immovables, except perhaps in certain cases such as ships or aircraft. There were dangers in limiting the Convention.

M. Huss (Luxembourg) fait remarquer que la difficul-té ne réside pas tellement dans la distinction entre meubles et immeubles. Mais étant donné que certaines législations vont très loin dans le sens de la fiction et que même certains objets mobiliers tels que les voitures peuvent être considérés comme des immeubles, il serait nécessaire de limiter la distinction aux seuls immeubles par nature.

M. Schultsz (Pays-Bas) se déclare en accord avec les observations des Délégués belge et luxembourgeois. En outre, si l'on entend exclure de la Convention les im-meubles par nature, i l serait nécessaire aussi d'indiquer quel moment est décisif pour décider si tel bien est mobilier ou immobilier.

Mr Philip (Denmark) said that he was convinced that immovables should not be excluded from the Convention. I f the question whether a particular product was an immovable or not was left to the courts of each

country, one of the main objects of the Convention would be defeated. He therefore favoured the inclusion

country, one of the main objects of the Convention would be defeated. He therefore favoured the inclusion