The development risks defence perha

The development risks defence perhaps the most criticized part of the Act. Many of the earlier criticisms of the defence centered on the accusation that its expression in the Act was weaker than that intended by the Directive. However, the ECJ has clarified that the words of the Act can, and should be read in a way that is in line with the intention of the Directive, and the courts have responded. Even so, some critics have argued that the whole idea of the defence is mistaken, and too serious a compromise of the idea of strict liability – it is argued that in practice it is really no more than an application of the foreseeability rule from negligence, and that essentially it means that a supplier that can prove that their lack of knowledge was not negligent can escape liability. In recognition of these concerns, several EU states do not include the defence in the legislation they put in place to enact the Directive.

การพัฒนาความเสี่ยงการป้องกันอาจจะเป็นส่วนหนึ่งที่ได้รับการวิพากษ์วิจารณ์มากที่สุดของพระราชบัญญัติ หลายคนวิพากษ์วิจารณ์ก่อนหน้านี้ของการป้องกันศูนย์กลางในการกล่าวหาว่าการแสดงออกในพระราชบัญญัติเป็นที่อ่อนแอที่ตั้งใจไว้โดยสั่ง อย่างไรก็ตาม ECJ ได้ชี้แจงว่าคำพูดของพระราชบัญญัติสามารถและควรจะอ่านในทางที่สอดคล้องกับความตั้งใจของ Directive และสนามมีการตอบสนอง ดังนั้นแม้นักวิจารณ์บางคนแย้งว่าความคิดทั้งหมดของการป้องกันคือการเข้าใจผิดและรุนแรงเกินไปประนีประนอมความคิดของหนี้สินที่เข้มงวด มันเป็นที่ถกเถียงกันอยู่ว่าในทางปฏิบัติมันเป็นจริงไม่เกินประยุกต์ใช้กฎ foreseeability จากความประมาท และที่เป็นหลักก็หมายความว่าผู้จัดจำหน่ายที่สามารถพิสูจน์ได้ว่าพวกเขาขาดความรู้ก็ไม่ประมาทสามารถหลบหนีความรับผิด ในการรับรู้ของความกังวลเหล่านี้หลายรัฐของสหภาพยุโรปไม่รวมถึงการป้องกันในการออกกฎหมายที่พวกเขาวางในสถานที่ที่จะออกกฎหมายสั่ง

Results (English) 1:

The development risks defence perhaps the most criticized part of the Act. Many of the earlier criticisms of the defence centered on the accusation that its expression in the Act was weaker than that intended by the Directive. However, the ECJ has clarified that the words of the Act can, and should be read in a way that is in line with the intention of the Directive, and the courts have responded. Even so, some critics have argued that the whole idea of the defence is mistaken, and too serious a compromise of the idea of strict liability – it is argued that in practice it is really no more than an application of the foreseeability rule from negligence, and that essentially it means that a supplier that can prove that their lack of knowledge was not negligent can escape liability. In recognition of these concerns, several EU states do not include the defence in the legislation they put in place to enact the Directive.Development of risk prevention can be part of that has been the most criticized of the Act. Many people criticized previous defense centered on allegations that an act was intended by the weak order. However, the ECJ has the clarification that the words of the Act can and should be read in a way that is consistent with the intentions of the Directive and are responding, so even though some critics dispute whether the whole idea of Defense is too serious and misunderstood the idea of compromise solutions.Strict credit it is argued that, in practice, it is actually not over apply the foreseeability rule from negligence and that is, it means that the vendor can prove that they lack knowledge, not to be able to escape liability for. In recognition of these concerns in many States of the European Union do not include protected in legislation that they put in place the legislation.

Results (English) 2:

The development risks defence perhaps the most criticized part of the Act. Many of the earlier criticisms of the defence centered on the accusation that its expression in the Act was weaker than that intended by the Directive. However, the ECJ has clarified that the words of. the Act can, and should be read in a way that is in line with the intention of the Directive, and the courts have responded. Even so, some critics have argued that the whole idea of the defence is mistaken, and too serious a compromise. of the idea of strict liability - it is argued that in practice it is really no more than an application of the foreseeability rule from negligence, and that essentially it means that a supplier that can prove that their lack of knowledge was not negligent can escape liability. . In recognition of these concerns, several EU states do not include the defence in the legislation they put in place to enact the Directive. The development risks defense might be the one who gets the most criticism of the law. Many people criticized the earlier of defense centered on allegations that the expression of the law is weak intended by instructing the ECJ has clarified that the words of the law can and should be read in a way that is consistent with the intent of the Directive, and. Field response Even so, some critics have argued that the idea of defense is mistaken and too serious compromise, the idea of strict liability. It is argued that in practice it is actually no more than rules apply. foreseeability Negligence And that essentially means that the supplier can prove that they lack the knowledge, it can not escape liability for negligence. In recognition of these concerns, several EU states, not including protected in the legislation they put in place to issue illegal orders.

Results (English) 3:

The development risks defence perhaps the most criticized part of the Act. Many of the earlier criticisms of the defence. Centered on the accusation that its expression in the Act was weaker than that intended by the Directive. However the ECJ,, Has clarified that the words of the, Act can and should be read in a way that is in line with the intention of, the DirectiveAnd the courts have responded. Even so some critics, have argued that the whole idea of the defence is mistaken and too,, Serious a compromise of the idea of strict liability - it is argued that in practice it is really no more than an application. Of the foreseeability rule, from negligenceAnd that essentially it means that a supplier that can prove that their lack of knowledge was not negligent can escape. Liability. In recognition of, these concerns several EU states do not include the defence in the legislation they put in. Place to enact the Directive.

.The development of the risk prevention might be a part that has been criticized for most of the law.However ECJ explained that the words of the law can and should be read in a way that is consistent with the intention of Directive and field response.It is argued that, in practice, it is actually not exceeding apply the rules foreseeability from be careless.In recognition of these concerns many states of the European Union does not include protection in legislation that they put in place to be ordered.