Compensation and internal recovery are different
Recourse concerns recovery between businesses after an operator has compensated the injured person. Article 14 of Directive (EU) 2024/2853 provides that, where more than one economic operator is liable for the same damage, the operator that compensated the injured person is entitled to pursue remedies against other operators liable under Article 8, in accordance with national law. It does not prescribe an automatic equal division of every payment.
Keep three questions distinct: whether an injured person has a compensation claim, which economic operators are liable under the Directive, and how a paying operator can recover from another liable operator. A supplier relationship alone does not answer all three. National law, the basis of each party's responsibility and relevant commercial agreements require examination before stating an allocation outcome.
Establish the shared liability foundation
Article 12 addresses joint and several liability where two or more economic operators are liable for the same damage. The economic operator framework explains the different Article 8 routes. Manufacturer, importer, component manufacturer and other actor conditions must be established individually. A payment by one business does not by itself prove that every other supply-chain participant was also liable.
Record the affected product and configuration, alleged defect, causal mechanism and damage compensated. Preserve why each proposed recovery target is said to be liable under Article 8. If a payment settles several disputed matters, distinguish the covered product damage from commercial losses or other claims. An unexplained settlement total can obscure which losses and legal relationships support the proposed recourse rather than clarify them.
Component suppliers and the initial-liability question
Before considering recovery against a component supplier, examine whether that supplier is liable. Article 8(1)(b) concerns a defective component integrated into or interconnected with a product within manufacturer control and causing that product to be defective. A component's mere presence in a failed product is insufficient. Keep specifications, batch or version information, integration approvals and the evidence connecting the alleged component defect to the harm.
Article 11(1)(f) is an initial-liability exemption, not a generic formula for dividing costs later. It permits a component manufacturer to prove that the finished product's defectiveness is attributable to the finished product's design or instructions given by its manufacturer to the component manufacturer. Preserve design requirements and instructions alongside the supplied component specification. If that exemption applies, describing the supplier as another liable operator for Article 14 purposes would require reconsideration rather than an assumed recourse percentage.
The narrow software recourse limitation
Article 12(2) provides a specific rule for a manufacturer integrating software as a component. It has no right of recourse against the manufacturer of a defective software component causing damage where two cumulative conditions are satisfied. First, the software manufacturer was a qualifying microenterprise or small enterprise when that software component was placed on the market, taking account of relevant partner and linked enterprises under Recommendation 2003/361/EC.
Second, the integrating manufacturer must have contractually agreed with the software manufacturer to waive that right of recourse. Small size alone is insufficient, and an unconnected general statement about supporting small developers is not the same as an agreed waiver. Preserve enterprise-status evidence for the relevant date and the actual contractual wording. The provision addresses recourse by the integrator; it should not be presented as general immunity from the injured person's compensation claim.
Contracts and statutory remedies
A supply agreement may contain indemnities, warranty provisions, liability caps, notice requirements or insurance arrangements. Those clauses can affect commercial disputes, subject to the applicable law and their proper scope. Article 14's national-law reference means the Directive should not be described as supplying every procedural step or allocation rule. Identify the relevant agreement, legal entities, covered product and effective period rather than relying on a clause copied from another transaction.
The explanation of joint and several liability distinguishes the injured person's position from later recovery. Article 15 prevents Directive liability from being excluded or limited by contract or national law in relation to the injured person. A private agreement allocating costs therefore should not be represented as removing that person's statutory route. Conversely, protecting the injured person's rights does not mean every private allocation provision between businesses is automatically irrelevant.
Build a loss and evidence record
Retain the original claim, technical reports, correspondence, settlement terms, proof of payment and an explanation of the losses compensated. Link each amount to the affected product and alleged harm where possible. Preserve supplier notices and responses with dates, while recognising that national rules determine relevant procedures and deadlines. A receipt proving payment is useful but may not explain the causal or legal basis for recovery.
Keep disputed issues visible. One operator may accept liability for some damage while contesting another part, or may settle without accepting a contested technical allegation. The file should distinguish established findings, agreed settlement terms and unresolved positions. This avoids treating a pragmatic payment decision as proof of every factual proposition needed for a separate dispute with a component manufacturer or other operator.
Product dates and a practical distinction
The corrected Directive scope concerns products placed on the market or put into service after 8 December 2026, while national transposition is due by 9 December 2026. Check the relevant product dates and implementing national law. The date a reimbursement demand is made does not automatically choose the underlying liability framework.
For example, an appliance manufacturer compensates a person after a fire allegedly caused by integrated software. Recovery from the software supplier requires examining that supplier's liability, the same damage, national-law remedies and any applicable agreement. If the supplier met the qualifying enterprise-size test and the integrator agreed the specified waiver, Article 12(2) may bar that recourse. Neither the payment nor the supplier's size alone resolves the matter.
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.
- Claim, settlement, compensated-loss schedule and payment proof
- Article 8 liability evidence for each recovery target
- Component instructions, design and integration documents
- Software supplier enterprise status and agreed recourse-waiver wording
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.
- Directive (EU) 2024/2853, consolidated text: Articles 2, 4, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 22 ↗
- Official Journal corrigendum, 7 May 2026: Article 2(1) ↗
Source register: corrected scope verified 16 October 2026. Article references identify the legal basis. No qualified legal review or national implementation status is claimed.