Published on
Updated
Reading 1 min.
In the case between Philips and patient associations concerning the manufacturer’s respirators, suspected of causing cancer, the urgent applications judge was seized to ask the courts for the forced communication of certain documents. According to Maître Lèguevaques, lawyer for the patients, the decision rendered by order yesterday, January 19, 2023, is a “small victory”.
In the so-called Respiratorgate case, the Dutch giant Philips is accused of having marketed respirators with a problem with the polyurethane foam they contain. In effect, “this foam is disintegrating“and this moss dust is”propelled with air into the patient’s lungs“who use these machines daily to breathe, recalls Maître Christophe Lèguevaques, lawyer for the victims.
Two questions for Philips
Since the beginning of this case, patient associations have mobilized and asked Philips to be accountable through the courts.
Two main questions animate the debates: Is this foam carcinogenic? Since when did Philips know about the problem?
Thursday, January 19, the judge in chambers has just rendered his decision on the request filed by Maître Lèguevaques. “On the surface, this is a decision favorable to Philips, because justice excludes “all foreign companies on the grounds that the jurisdiction of the Court does not cross borders” and refuses “any “civil search” which leads the judge to refuse the forced communication of documents and exhibits whose existence has not been established with certainty“says the lawyer.
A decision that can set a precedent
But for the lawyer, this court decision presents two major advances:
- Firstly, “the urgent applications judge recognizes that patient associations have a “legitimate interest” to demand in court the forced communication of exhibits and documents” ;
- And on the other hand, the judge “organizes a forced communication to justice and it is up to the judge to filter the communication and verify the interest of this communication” indicates the lawyer.
“This means that Philips will not be able to directly oppose business secrecy to avoid disclosing documents. It is a breach in the wall that this secrecy constitutes, which could possibly set a precedent for other cases” believes Maître Lèguevaques, who is now waiting to see if Philips will appeal this decision.