Depends above all on successive operations of legal

[Roselin67]

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 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 country-email-list the sense that it does not preclude a national evidentiary regime requiring the incrimination of the vaccine manufacturer, despite medical research that neither establishes nor disproves the existence of a link between the vaccine and the resulting disease . Regarding the second question, Article opposes an evidentiary regime that would have an automatic incriminating effect. The Court's decision ) Article of Council Directive / /EEC of July on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products must be interpreted as meaning that does not oppose a national evidentiary regime such as that at issue in the main litigation, under which, when the court of first instance is seised of an action are brought together.



The existence of a causal link between the defect attributed to a vaccine and the damage suffered by the injured person would always be considered established then when certain predetermined factual indications of causality, when medical research does not establish and nor does it deny the existence of a link between the administration of the vaccine and the occurrence of the disease that affects the injured person, opposes an evidentiary regime based on presumptions according to which ) Article of Directive / must be interpreted in the sense that it , certain elements in fact invoked by the plaintiff constitute serious, precise and concordant indications that allow to conclude that there is a defect in the vaccine and a causal link between this defect and the disease in question.