How Jurisdiction Affects Product Liability

EU Directive-level explanationUpdated 16 October 2026By ProductLiability.help editorial desk

Three legal questions, not one location

Jurisdiction matters because product liability is not governed by a single worldwide code. Three questions should be separated: which court may hear a dispute, which law governs the relevant obligation and which product liability framework applies under that law. A court can sometimes apply another country's law. The manufacturer's registered office, the purchase location and the place of injury are therefore facts to investigate, not interchangeable answers.

The product liability fundamentals explain the product, defect, damage and responsibility questions. Jurisdiction adds the legal setting in which those questions are assessed. A cross-border investigation should record the relevant countries early, without announcing that the claimant can sue in any convenient place or that the seller's contract automatically chooses the law for every injured person.

Court jurisdiction and applicable law differ

Within its scope, the Brussels I bis Regulation provides rules on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters. Its framework includes general and special jurisdiction provisions, with specific rules for some relationships. Article 7(2) addresses the place where a harmful event occurred or may occur for matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict. Applying that language to a product incident can require relevant case law and careful factual analysis.

Rome II addresses law applicable to non-contractual obligations within its scope. A finding about a court's jurisdiction does not by itself resolve the Rome II analysis. Nor should a Directive-level content page be treated as a procedural map for every country. Instrument scope, territorial participation, exceptions and the actual causes of action all require examination before deriving a practical conclusion.

Rome II has a product-specific rule

Article 5 of Rome II contains a sequence of connecting factors for damage caused by a product, without prejudice to the common-residence rule in Article 4(2). The sequence concerns the injured person's habitual residence, then the place of acquisition and then the place of damage, with marketing conditions attached. These are not three equally selectable options. The conditions and order matter.

Article 5 also contains a foreseeability qualification concerning the marketing of the product or a product of the same type, and a manifestly closer connection provision. The result should not be simplified into a universal rule that the place of injury always decides the law. Preserve the evidence needed to assess the actual factors, including supply channels and marketing, rather than relying only on the shipping address shown on one invoice.

Harmonisation does not remove the national layer

Directive 2024/2853 harmonises matters within its scope, subject to its stated provisions. It still requires national transposition. Important questions about procedure, compensation and interaction with other routes can require national sources. A summary of the Directive is not evidence that a particular Member State has adopted an implementing act, brought it into force or selected every available national option.

For country-specific research, identify the adopted instrument, official publication, commencement and transitional provisions. Distinguish a consultation, bill or government announcement from enacted law. A notification in a transposition database can be a research lead, but the underlying national instrument should be examined. This page does not assert any Member State's implementation status or describe a draft as operative law.

Product dates are another separate dimension

The corrected Article 2(1) applies to products placed on the market or put into service after 8 December 2026. Article 22 sets the transposition deadline at 9 December 2026. The accident date is not a substitute for the product-date rule. The discussion of the product lifecycle explains why original supply, first use, later modification and incident-time state need distinct entries.

An older product may require examination under the previous framework and national law. A later update or substantial modification can raise additional questions, but should not automatically be treated as moving every historic product into the new regime. Record the relevant facts and the legal basis for the temporal analysis. Do not apply the newest text merely because it is the easiest source to locate.

Build a cross-border research record

Record the parties' relevant locations, acquisition route, product marketing, supply history and place of damage. Identify whether contractual and non-contractual allegations are being investigated separately. Preserve the original sales terms without assuming they bind every injured person for every purpose. Also record the sources and date of the legal research, so later changes in implementation do not silently alter an earlier conclusion.

National procedural rules and time limits can be consequential and should be checked by a suitably qualified professional for an individual matter. This guide explains why geography affects the research; it does not choose a court, determine governing law or calculate a deadline for a reader. Keeping jurisdiction, applicable law and substantive product liability scope separate makes the investigation clearer and reduces unsupported assumptions.

Records that help the review

Use the following as a practical starting point. Select and preserve records appropriate to the product, incident and applicable procedure.

Locations of the parties, supply, acquisition and damage
Evidence of where the product was marketed
Relevant product dates and national implementing instruments

Independent educational information at EU Directive level. National implementing law and procedure require separate review.

Primary sources and legal scope

This page explains the EU Directive framework. Check national implementing law, the corrected temporal scope and relevant procedure before applying it to a case.

Source register: corrected scope verified 16 October 2026. Article references identify the legal basis. No qualified legal review or national implementation status is claimed.