StopUMTS Logo
how to get rid of moles 
Zoeken
   
Voorlichting
06/11/17Beschermen tegen de ra
12/10/17Meetspecialisten, meet
Artikelen
16/11/17ADHD is meer een probleem
16/11/17Mobile phones cause letha
16/11/17Mt Nardi Wildlife Report
15/11/17Cell Phone Headaches –
14/11/1715.000 wetenschappers uit
14/11/17Stralingsbelasting en gel
Berichten Nederland
18/11/17KWF collecteert met stral
16/11/17Promotie van een psycholo
16/11/17Toename van klachten in N
14/11/17Aantal antenne-installati
13/11/17Vanavond 13 nov. in Radar
Berichten België
14/11/17Hoe gezond of ongezond is
24/10/17NMBS-baas Sophie Dutordoi
Berichten Internationaal
18/11/17IARC-WHO: Global burden o
18/11/17Duits verbod op 'slimme'
14/11/17De stralingsbelasting en
09/11/17Bill Gates and Steve Jobs
Ervaringen | Appellen/oproepen
17/11/17Alice kan niet tegen stra
12/11/17Afscherming, voor sommige
05/11/17TV met WiFi; een ervaring
Onderzoeken
14/11/17Modeled and Perceived Exp
06/11/17Decreases in sleep durati
25/10/17Radiation from wireless t
Veel gestelde vragen
13/05/17Vakantie? Witte zo
10/07/16Zeven veel gestelde vrage
Juridische informatie
08/11/17InPower Movement: Early r
19/10/17The precautionary princip
11/10/17Telekom warns of (its own
Oproepen
29/11/17Raadsmarkt ZENDMASTEN &
11/11/17Cursus ‘Straling meten
29/10/17Petitie: Geen uitbreiding
Folders
10/09/17Brochures, folders, websi
29/04/16USA: Meer dan 50 tips voo
Briefwisselingen | Archief: 2008, 2005
10/07/17Brief naar de gemeente C.
14/06/17Mail naar 'De Monitor' na
Illustraties
 Algemeen
 Fotoalbum zendmasten
 Wetenschappelijke illustraties
Arrest van Europese Hof van Justitie d.d. 21 juni 2017: Vaccin kan ziekte veroorzaken    
Ga naar overzicht berichten in: Juridische Informatie

Arrest van Europese Hof van Justitie d.d. 21 juni 2017: Vaccin kan ziekte veroorzaken
dinsdag, 27 juni 2017 - Dossier: Juridische informatie


Bron: emls.webnode.nl/news/europese-hof-van-justitie-vaccin-kan-ziekte-veroorzaken/
22 juni 2017

Het arrest werd gewezen waarbij een verklaring van recht werd gegeven onder beantwoording van
prejudiciële vragen. Het verzoek om een prejudiciële beslissing betreft de uitlegging van
artikel 4 van richtlijn 85/374/EEG van de Raad van 25 juli 1985 betreffende de onderlinge aanpassing
van de wettelijke en bestuursrechtelijke bepalingen der lidstaten inzake de aansprakelijkheid
voor producten met gebreken (PB 1985, L 210, blz. 29).

Ditverzoek is ingediend in het kader van een geding tussen enerzijds N., L. en C. W (hierna: „W e.a.”),
optredend in hun eigen naam en als erfgenamen van J. W, en anderzijds Sanofi Pasteur MSD
SNC (hierna: „Sanofi Pasteur”), de Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine
(ziekenfonds van het departement Hauts-de-Seine, Frankrijk) en Carpimko, een zelfstandig
pensioen- en voorzorgsfonds, betreffende de eventuele aansprakelijkheid van Sanofi Pasteur
wegens een vermeend gebrek van het door haar geproduceerde vaccin.

Onderstaand het persbericht en het arrest.

Where there is a lack of scientific consensus, the proof of the defect of the vaccine
and of a causal link between the defect and the damage suffered may be made out
by serious, specific and consistent evidence
The temporal proximity between the administering of a vaccine and the occurrence of a disease,
the lack of personal and familial history of the person vaccinated and the existence of a significant
number of reported cases of the disease occurring following such vaccines being administered
may, where applicable, constitute sufficient evidence to make out such proof
Between the end of 1998 and the middle of 1999 Mr J. W was vaccinated against hepatitis B using
a vaccine produced by Sanofi Pasteur. In August 1999, Mr W began to present with various
troubles, which led to a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis in November 2000. Mr W died in 2011.
Earlier, in 2006, he and his family had brought legal proceedings against Sanofi Pasteur to obtain
compensation for the damage they claim Mr W suffered due to the vaccine.
The case was sent before the cour d’appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris, France), which
observed, inter alia, that there was no scientific consensus supporting a causal relationship
between the vaccination against hepatitis B and the occurrence of multiple sclerosis. It held that no
such causal link had been demonstrated and dismissed the action.
The French Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation), before which an appeal against the judgment
of the Cour d’appel de Paris was brought, asks the Court of Justice whether, despite there being
no scientific consensus and given that, under the EU directive on liability for defective products, 1
the injured person is required to prove the damage, the defect and the causal relationship, the
court may base itself on serious, specific and consistent evidence enabling it to conclude that there
is a causal link between the defect in a vaccine and that there is a causal link between the vaccine
and the disease. Reference has been made in particular to Mr W’s previous excellent state of
health, the lack of family antecedents and the close temporal connection between the vaccination
and the appearance of the disease.
In today’s judgment, the Court holds that evidentiary rules allowing the court, where there is not
certain and irrefutable evidence, to conclude that there is a defect in a vaccine and a causal link
between the defect and a disease on the basis of a set of evidence the seriousness, specificity and
consistency of which allows it to consider, with a sufficiently high degree of probability, that such a
conclusion corresponds to the reality of the situation, are compatible with the Directive. Such
evidentiary rules do not bring about a reversal of the burden of proof which it is for the victim to
discharge, since that system places the burden on the victim to prove the various elements of his
case which, taken together, will provide the court hearing the case with a basis for its conclusion as
to the existence of a defect in the vaccine and a causal link between that defect and the damage
suffered.
Moreover, excluding any method of proof other than certain proof based on medical research,
could make it excessively difficult in many situations or, where it is common ground that medical
research neither confirms nor rules out the existence of a causal link, impossible to establish

1 Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985, L 210, p. 29).
www.curia.europa.eu
producer liability, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the Directive and its objectives, which
are to protect consumer health and safety and ensure a fair apportionment between the injured
person and the producer of the risks inherent in modern technological production.
The Court nevertheless adds that national courts must ensure that the evidence adduced is
sufficiently serious, specific and consistent to warrant the conclusion that, having regard also to the
evidence produced and the arguments put forward by the producer, a defect in the product
appears to be the most plausible explanation for the occurrence of the damage. National courts
must also safeguard their own freedom of assessment in determining whether such proof has been
made out to the requisite legal standard, until such time as they consider themselves in a position
to draw a definitive conclusion on the matter.
In the present case, the Court considers that the temporal proximity between the administering of a
vaccine and the occurrence of a disease, the lack of personal and familial history of that disease,
together with the existence of a significant number of reported cases of the disease occurring
following such vaccines being administered, appears on the face of it to constitute evidence which,
taken together, may lead a national court to consider that a victim has discharged his burden of
proof. That could be the case inter alia where that evidence leads the court to consider, first, that
the administering of the vaccine is the most plausible explanation for the occurrence of the disease
and, second, that the vaccine therefore does not offer the safety that one is entitled to expect.
The Court adds that it is not possible for the national legislature or the national courts to introduce
a method of proof under which the existence of a causal link between the defect attributed to a
vaccine and the damage suffered by the victim will automatically be established when certain
predetermined causation-related factual evidence is presented, as that would have the
consequence of the burden of proof provided for in the Directive being undermined.


NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes
which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of
European Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the
dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s
decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.

Bron: Persbericht No 66/2017 curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2017-06/cp170066en.pdf

Lees de uitspraak hier onderstaand.
curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d5e24e199bd6444d36bd7ae499dddfdc5d.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4PaxqPe0?text=&docid=192054&pageIndex=0&doclang=nl&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=400116



Lees meer: emls.webnode.nl/news/europese-hof-van-justitie-vaccin-kan-ziekte-veroorzaken/


Zie ook:
Artikelen/10786/eu-hof_vaccin_kan_ziekte_veroorzaken .


Ga terug naar het hoofdmenu
Afdrukken | Vragen | RSS | Disclaimer