In a judgment delivered on 24 June 2026, the French Court of Cassation interpreted Article 1245-16 of the French Civil Code, which transposes Article 10(1) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC, concerning the limitation period applicable to claims based on liability for defective products.

🔹 In 2022, a patient who claimed to have suffered adverse side effects from a medicinal product since 2005 brought proceedings against the pharmaceutical manufacturer, seeking a medical expert assessment to evaluate the harm allegedly suffered.

As the manufacturer argued that the claim was time-barred, the Court of Appeal declared the action inadmissible, holding that the limitation period had expired.

The question referred to the Court of Cassation was whether the three-year limitation period set out in Article 1245-16 of the Civil Code runs from the date on which the bodily injury is medically consolidated, or from the date on which the victim knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the damage, the defect in the product, and the identity of the producer.

In answering this question, the Court first recalled that, under Article 1245-16 of the Civil Code, an action for compensation based on liability for defective products is time-barred after three years from the date on which the claimant knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the damage, the defect in the product, and the identity of the producer.

The Court then referred to its previous case law, under which, in cases of bodily injury, the victim was deemed to have knowledge of the damage on the date on which the injury was medically consolidated (First Civil Chamber, 5 July 2023, Appeal No. 22-18.914; published).

Finally, the First Civil Chamber relied on a recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU, 26 March 2026, Case C-338/24, LF v Sanofi Pasteur) to reverse its previous case law, holding that:

“It must therefore now be held that the starting point of the limitation period under Article 1386-17 (now Article 1245-16) of the Civil Code is the date on which the claimant knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of both the damage – which had clearly emerged in connection with the defective product, irrespective of its subsequent development – and the defect in the product and the identity of the producer.”

In this case, the lower courts had found that the patient already had, as of 2008, all the information necessary to trigger the running of the limitation period. He was aware of the symptoms he had experienced and their connection with the medicinal product, of the alleged defect relating to the product’s addictive nature, which could make withdrawal difficult, and of the identity of the producer. As the action had been brought after the three-year limitation period had expired, the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal.

Drawing the consequences of the CJEU’s recent interpretation, the First Civil Chamber accordingly abandoned its previous approach of postponing, until medical consolidation, the running of the limitation period for actions seeking compensation for bodily injury.