What is the statute of limitations for personal injury claims in France?

Our foreign clients often ask us about the statute of limitations for personal injury under French law. While the question may appear straightforward, the answer is, in fact, more nuanced. 

What is the statute of limitations under the product liability regime?

Under the product liability regime resulting from the transposition of Directive 85/374/EEC^[1], consumer actions against manufacturers are subject to a dual limitation period:

1. a 3-year limitation period running "from the date on which the claimant became aware or should have become aware of the damage, the defect, and the identity of the producer" (Article 1245-16 of the French Civil Code Transposing Article 10 of Directive 85/374/EEC);
2. a 10-year expiry period running from the date on which "the product that caused the damage was put into circulation, unless, during that period, the victim has brought legal proceedings" (Article 1245-15 of the French Civil Code Transposing Article 11 of Directive 85/374/EEC).

• What is the limitation period under ordinary law?

The limitation period under ordinary law for bodily injury claims - applicable in particular to actions based on tort liability - is 10 years. The question is: when does it start running?

Article 2226 of the French Civil Code thus provides that "Actions for liability arising from an event that has caused bodily injury, brought by the direct or indirect victim of the resulting damage, are time-barred after ten years from the date of stabilisation of the initial or aggravated damage"^[2].

This 10-year limitation period does not apply where a more specific regime governs the claim, such as when the alleged damage is caused by a safety defect in a product falling within the scope of the defective products liability regime.

This distinction raises several questions concerning the starting point of the limitation period under the different applicable regimes.

Regarding the statute of limitations under ordinary law, the French Civil Code expressly provides that the limitation period begins to run only from the stabilisation of the initial or aggravated damage.

Stabilisation corresponds to the point in time at which a person's state of health is no longer likely to evolve significantly, barring any subsequent deterioration. However, setting such a date is far from straightforward, especially in cases involving progressive diseases.

This concept of stabilisation is therefore a source of uncertainty for businesses seeking foreseeability (to the extent possible) regarding their potential exposure. Determining when limitation periods expire is indeed a key question for risk management. 

Who sets the date of stabilisation?

The stabilisation date is generally set by a medical expert, most often as part of a medical assessment, which may be amicable or judicial. This expert assesses the person's state of health and determines when the damage observed has stabilised. 

• In practice, this may involve an amicable assessment carried out by a medical practitioner appointed by the insurer, or by an expert jointly appointed by the parties.
• In the case of a more formal claim, the expert may be appointed by a Conciliation and Compensation Commission or by a court, when a judge orders expert investigations (which is almost always the case in product liability cases). 

The stabilisation date may also be set by judges based on the facts at their disposal. This may occur, for example, where the medical expert report is silent on the stabilisation date or does not convince the judges. Judges are not bound by the conclusions of the court-appointed experts: they may depart from them in forming their own assessment.

Does the concept of stabilisation also apply to the 3-year limitation period under the product liability regime?

While the concept of stabilisation is expressly referred to under ordinary law, it is not mentioned in the provisions of the product liability regime.

Yet, the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) has adopted a stance particularly favourable to claimants. Indeed, it has ruled that, in the event of bodily injury, the date of knowledge of the damage in the product liability regime must be understood as the date of stabilisation (Court of cassation, 1^st Civil Chamber, 5 July 2023, appeal no. 22-18914). 

In other words, based on the French Supreme Court current case law, the date of stabilisation of the damage must be regarded as the starting point of the 3-year limitation period of the defective product regime.

This interpretation was not self-evident, as neither Directive 85/374/EEC nor its transposition text refer to the concept of stabilisation.

In its 2025 Annual Review of Studies, the French Supreme Court openly acknowledges the fact that the ordinary law on limitation periods has influenced and continues to influence the defective products liability regime. According to the French Supreme Court, this approach seeks to ensure "the effectiveness of victims' rights and the harmonised application of the starting point of the limitation period for personal injury". 

The French Supreme Court further states that it considers that a person who has suffered bodily injury "only has real knowledge of their injury when they know its extent and its various consequences, which implies that it has stabilised. Before stabilisation, they cannot comprehend its impact and the extent of the personal and economic damage resulting from it. Furthermore, taking the first manifestation of the damage into account would be very unfavourable to victims of bodily injury, especially since the limitation period for liability for defective products is only three years and is subject to a ten-year time limit".

Can cases involving progressive diseases ever be time-barred?

The French Supreme Court has ruled that for cases involving progressive diseases for which no stabilisation date can be determined, the 3-year limitation period cannot start running (see the above-mentioned decision, Court of cassation, 1^st Civil Chamber, 5 July 2023, appeal no. 22-18914).

We find this particularly broad interpretation problematic. Indeed, ruling that the limitation period cannot begin to run when a state of health has not stabilised means, in practice, that certain claims would never become time-barred. One example that comes to mind is litigation cases based on allegations of progressive autoimmune diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, where medical experts are sometimes reluctant to set a stabilisation date.

Is the 10-year expiry period provided for by Directive 85/374/EEC set in stone?

The abovementioned case law solution raises broader questions regarding the current defective products liability regime. 

Assuming that the 3-year limitation period cannot start running without a stabilisation date, our opinion is that such postponement of the limitation period starting point should not prevent the application of the 10-year expiry period provided for by Directive 85/374/EEC. It is indeed the spirit of this Directive to extinguish the liability of producers after a "reasonable period of time", which the European legislator had set at 10 years (Article 11 of Directive 85/374/EEC).

A request for a preliminary ruling was referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the "CJEU"), including one question on the compliance of this 10-year expiry period with the provisions of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter "the Charter") (CJEU, case C-338/24 - pending). 

In essence, the question asked whether extinguishing the rights of claimants suffering from progressive diseases ten years after the product causing the damage was put into circulation infringes Article 47 of the Charter by depriving those claimants of effective access to a court.

In her Opinion of 19 June 2025, the Advocate General considered that the 10-year expiry period was incompatible with Article 47 of the Charter insofar as it deprived claimants of an effective remedy. 

She considered that “Article 11 of Directive 85/374, under which the rights conferred on an injured person by that directive are extinguished on expiry of a period of 10 years from the date on which the harmful product was put into circulation, is invalid in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as its application has the effect of extinguishing the right to claim compensation of injured persons suffering from a progressive disease who, according to medical evidence, due to the progressive nature of their medical condition, cannot fully evaluate the damage caused to them and have therefore been unable to initiate proceedings against the producer within that period, thereby depriving those persons of their right of access to a court”. 

The Advocate General's position is open to criticism insofar as, in our view, the inability to fully assess one's damage does not prevent a claimant from bringing a case before the courts in view of the damage already observed. 

Moreover, this position goes against the arguments put forward by the European Commission, the Council, and the Dutch and German governments. The CJEU has not yet handed down its ruling, which is eagerly awaited – at least in France – as it will have an impact on the articulation between tort liability and defective products liability under French law.

Last but not least, will the new Product Liability Directive change the landscape?

The 2024 Product Liability Directive – Directive (EU) 2024/2853[3] – aims to replace Directive 85/374/EEC. It will apply to products placed on the market from 9 December 2026 onwards.

The 2024 Product Liability Directive provides for a similar framework, but introduces a noteworthy exception:

1. a 3-yearlimitation period running from the day on which the injured person became aware, or should reasonably have become aware, of the damage, the defectiveness and the identity of the relevant liable economic operator (Article 16 of Directive 2024/2853),
2. a 10-year expiry period running from “the date on which the defective product which caused the damage was placed on the market or put into service” or “in the case of a substantially modified product, the date on which that product was made available on the market or put into service following its substantial modification” (Article 17 of Directive 2024/2853),
3. by way of exception, Article 17 of Directive 2024/2853 also provides for a 25-year expiry period in cases of latent injuries. This exception will likely trigger further debate on latency of personal injuries, being already noted that latent injuries and progressive pathologies are not (necessarily) the same things.

Further developments on statutes of limitations under French law are to be expected, regarding both the currently available grounds and the upcoming framework of the new Product Liability Directive. 

Our experts at Bird & Bird will provide relevant updates once the CJEU ruling is made available.