Civil Law and Aviation Supply Chain Parts Counterfeit Litigation in Europe

1. Introduction

Aviation supply-chain parts counterfeit litigation arises when an aircraft, engine, maintenance organisation, airline, lessor, insurer, or manufacturer discovers that an aircraft component is counterfeit, falsely certified, stolen, misrepresented, unapproved, or accompanied by forged airworthiness documentation.

Examples include:

counterfeit engine components;

falsified EASA Form 1 or FAA 8130-3 certificates;

altered serial numbers or identification plates;

stolen genuine parts sold as legitimate inventory;

non-approved parts represented as OEM parts;

used parts falsely represented as new;

parts with falsified overhaul records;

components entering an airline's maintenance system through intermediaries;

counterfeit safety-critical components causing aircraft grounding or an accident.

There is an important current example: in 2026, the UK Serious Fraud Office reported the conviction and imprisonment of the director of AOG Technics following a scheme involving more than 60,000 aircraft-engine parts accompanied by forged authorised-release certificates. The case demonstrates the practical importance of traceability, certification and supply-chain verification, although it is primarily a criminal proceeding rather than a reported European civil damages judgment. (GOV.UK)

EASA also maintains a continuing database of suspected, confirmed unapproved and stolen aircraft parts. It specifically warns that its SUP database is a safety-information system and not itself proof of guilt or misconduct. (EASA)

As of 2026, there is no large body of CJEU case law specifically titled “counterfeit aircraft parts liability.” Therefore, European litigation is constructed from several legal areas: aviation law, product liability, contract law, tort/delict, intellectual-property law, fraud/misrepresentation, customs law and insurance/subrogation.

2. Meaning of a Counterfeit Aviation Part

A counterfeit aviation part is not necessarily merely a poor-quality component.

It may involve:

Physical counterfeit – manufactured to imitate an authentic part.

Certificate counterfeit – genuine or non-genuine component accompanied by forged certification.

Identity fraud – altered serial number, batch number or identification plate.

Origin fraud – part represented as manufactured or supplied by an OEM when it was not.

Condition fraud – used or unserviceable component represented as new or serviceable.

Approval fraud – component represented as having the required aviation approval when it does not.

Overhaul-record fraud – false maintenance or overhaul history.

Stolen-part substitution – genuine part obtained unlawfully and inserted into a legitimate supply chain.

The legal significance is particularly high because aviation components are integrated into a safety-critical system.

3. Main Legal Framework in Europe

A. Product liability

Historically, the principal EU instrument was Directive 85/374/EEC on liability for defective products.

The newer Product Liability Directive (EU) 2024/2853 significantly modernises the framework and expressly accommodates modern products and digital elements.

A counterfeit component can potentially raise:

defect;

insufficient safety;

manufacturer identity;

importer liability;

distributor liability;

component-producer liability;

causation;

personal injury;

property damage.

The classic EU product-liability structure requires proof of:

Damage + Defect + Causation.

The original Directive also recognised the manufacturer of a component part as a producer. (Eur-Lex)

B. Contract law

Aviation supply chains commonly contain several contracts:

OEM → distributor → parts trader → MRO → airline/lessor

A counterfeit component may therefore constitute:

breach of express warranty;

breach of conformity obligation;

breach of description;

breach of quality obligation;

breach of airworthiness obligation;

breach of certification warranty;

fraudulent misrepresentation;

negligent misstatement;

failure to disclose defective provenance.

Contract claims are often particularly important because the buyer may have suffered substantial losses even where nobody was physically injured.

For example:

Airline purchases 20 supposedly genuine engine components → discovers forged certification → grounds aircraft → purchases replacement components → incurs maintenance and cancellation costs.

The airline may seek contractual damages from the supplier even if the counterfeit part never actually fails.

4. Aviation-Specific Regulatory Dimension

European aviation law places substantial emphasis on:

airworthiness;

approved parts;

maintenance records;

traceability;

approved organisations;

certification;

continuing airworthiness;

reporting of unsafe conditions.

EASA's current SUP database contains thousands of entries involving suspected or confirmed unapproved parts, including stolen identification plates, improperly manufactured components and forged certification documents. (EASA)

This creates an important distinction:

Regulatory non-compliance

A part may be prohibited from installation because its approval or provenance cannot be established.

Civil liability

The claimant must additionally establish the legal elements necessary for compensation, such as:

breach/defect → causation → legally recoverable damage.

Thus, finding a counterfeit component does not automatically determine every civil claim.

5. Case Law

Case 1 — Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH v AOK Sachsen-Anhalt

Joined Cases C-503/13 and C-504/13, CJEU, 5 March 2015

This is one of the most important EU product-liability authorities for counterfeit/unapproved aviation-part analysis.

The case concerned pacemakers and implantable defibrillators. A potential defect existed in products belonging to the same group or production series.

The CJEU held that where products belonging to the same group or production series have an increased potential for failure, an individual product may be regarded as defective without the claimant having to establish that the particular individual device had already failed.

(Eur-Lex)

Aviation application

Suppose:

200 aircraft components come from the same suspect production batch;

one component is discovered to be counterfeit or dangerously non-conforming;

the remaining components have the same suspect provenance.

A claimant may argue that the systemic safety risk justifies precautionary replacement.

The case is not about aircraft, but its reasoning is highly relevant to safety-critical aviation components.

Principle

Safety risk within a product group can become legally significant even before an actual catastrophic failure occurs.

6. Case 2 — Skov and Bilka

Case C-402/03, CJEU, 10 January 2006

This case concerned the allocation of liability between a producer and supplier under the EU product-liability regime.

The CJEU held that the Directive establishes a harmonised category of persons liable under its strict-liability regime. A Member State could not simply impose unlimited producer-type liability on suppliers under the Directive where the Directive itself did not make them liable in that way. (curia)

Aviation significance

Consider:

OEM → distributor → broker → MRO → airline

If a counterfeit part causes an accident, the claimant must determine:

Who actually manufactured it?

Who imported it?

Who represented itself as producer?

Who merely supplied it?

Was the supplier acting negligently?

Did a contractual warranty exist?

Can another national-law cause of action apply?

Principle

The legal identity and role of each supply-chain participant matter.

This is particularly important in aviation because a parts trader may not be the actual manufacturer.

7. Case 3 — O'Byrne v Sanofi Pasteur MSD

Case C-127/04, CJEU, 9 February 2006

O'Byrne concerned the meaning of “putting into circulation” under the Product Liability Directive and the relationship between a producer and its distribution network.

The CJEU considered when a product leaves the producer's manufacturing process and enters the distribution process. (Infocuria)

Aviation application

This becomes important where counterfeit components travel through numerous intermediaries.

Example:

Manufacturer → wholly-owned subsidiary → European distributor → broker → MRO → airline.

The court may need to determine:

when the component entered circulation;

who had control of it;

which entity was actually the producer;

whether a company in the distribution chain was sufficiently connected with the producer;

whether limitation rules have expired.

Principle

Supply-chain structure is legally relevant to identifying the responsible producer and the commencement of liability periods.

8. Case 4 — Philips and Nokia

Joined Cases C-446/09 and C-495/09, CJEU, 1 December 2011

This is particularly important for the counterfeit aspect of the present topic.

The cases concerned counterfeit goods from non-EU countries placed in customs warehousing or external transit.

The CJEU considered when customs authorities could treat goods as counterfeit or pirated goods under EU customs/IP rules. The Court held that goods in transit or customs warehousing could fall within the relevant EU counterfeit-goods framework where there was evidence that they were intended to be put on sale in the EU. (Infocuria)

Aviation application

Imagine a shipment of supposedly genuine aircraft components:

Asia → European customs warehouse → European parts trader → airline

If the shipment contains counterfeit components, the customs/IP dimension can arise before installation into an aircraft.

This may lead to:

detention;

seizure;

destruction;

trademark enforcement;

customs proceedings;

subsequent civil damages.

Principle

Counterfeit aviation components can generate legal consequences while still within the international logistics chain.

9. Case 5 — Commission v France

Case C-52/00, CJEU

This case is relevant to the relationship between EU product-liability harmonisation and national civil-liability rules.

The CJEU examined national rules against the background of the EU Product Liability Directive and the extent to which Member States could add liability mechanisms within the harmonised field.

Aviation application

An aircraft accident may generate several potential causes of action:

EU product liability;

national tort/delict;

contractual warranty;

fraud;

professional negligence;

aviation-specific liability.

The claimant therefore cannot automatically assume that every national rule supplements the EU strict-liability system in exactly the same manner.

Principle

EU product-liability harmonisation affects the availability and structure of national liability rules.

This is particularly important for cross-border aviation supply chains.

10. Case 6 — Veedfald v Århus Amtskommune

Case C-203/99, CJEU, 10 May 2001

Veedfald concerned product liability involving a product used in a medical context.

The case helped establish that the Product Liability Directive focuses on the safety that persons are entitled to expect, rather than merely whether the product technically performs its intended function.

Aviation application

A counterfeit aircraft component could potentially appear mechanically functional while still being legally defective because:

its provenance is unknown;

its certification is false;

its manufacturing standards are unknown;

its maintenance history is fabricated;

its safety characteristics cannot be established.

Thus:

“It works” ≠ necessarily “it is legally safe.”

Principle

Safety expectations are central to determining defectiveness.

11. Case 7 — Sanofi Pasteur v Merck Sharp & Dohme

Case C-621/15, CJEU, 21 June 2017

Sanofi Pasteur concerned causation and scientific uncertainty in EU product liability.

The CJEU addressed circumstances in which the claimant faces difficulty proving causation through scientific certainty.

Aviation significance

Counterfeit-part litigation may involve highly technical causation questions:

Did the counterfeit component cause the engine failure?

Was the accident caused by the counterfeit component or another defect?

Did improper installation contribute?

Did maintenance contribute?

Did the aircraft's operating conditions contribute?

Expert evidence can therefore become decisive.

Principle

A product-liability claim requires a legally sufficient causal connection between the defect and the damage, even though the evidentiary assessment can be technically complex.

12. Case 8 — Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia

Case C-549/07, CJEU, 22 December 2008

This is an important aviation-specific supporting authority.

The CJEU examined technical aircraft problems under Regulation 261/2004.

The Court distinguished ordinary technical problems from genuinely external extraordinary circumstances. It also recognised that an airline may have recourse against another party responsible for a defective component. (Infocuria)

Aviation supply-chain significance

If a counterfeit part causes an aircraft to be grounded:

Passenger liability of airline

does not necessarily mean:

ultimate economic responsibility of airline.

The airline may potentially pursue the responsible:

component manufacturer;

distributor;

MRO;

broker;

certification intermediary.

Principle

A carrier's regulatory/passenger obligations and its separate recovery claim against a component supplier are legally distinct.

13. Case 9 — D. (Engine Design Defect)

Case C-411/23, CJEU, 12 June 2024

This case concerned technical failures caused by a hidden aircraft-engine design defect.

The Court considered the relationship between an aircraft technical defect and Regulation 261/2004's extraordinary-circumstances regime. (Infocuria)

Although it did not concern counterfeit parts, it is highly relevant because it illustrates how European aviation law deals with defects originating further upstream in the aviation manufacturing chain.

Application

A counterfeit component may similarly produce:

aircraft grounding;

flight cancellation;

delay;

replacement costs;

passenger claims;

airline losses.

The carrier's obligations toward passengers remain a separate question from its potential recovery against the party responsible for the defective component.

14. Case 10 — Austrian Airlines

Case C-408/24, judgment 12 February 2026

This recent CJEU case concerned failure of an aeronautical telecommunications server, flight cancellations and alleged negligence of the relevant air-navigation service provider. (Infocuria)

It is not a counterfeit-parts case, but it illustrates a broader principle relevant to aviation supply-chain litigation:

Aviation disruption can generate separate questions of regulatory responsibility and material-damage recovery.

For counterfeit parts, similar separation may exist between:

airline's passenger-facing liability;

MRO obligations;

supplier liability;

manufacturer liability;

insurer/subrogated recovery.

15. Main Civil Causes of Action

A. Breach of contract

The buyer may claim that the supplier breached:

specification;

quality warranty;

airworthiness warranty;

certification warranty;

provenance warranty;

conformity obligation.

B. Fraudulent misrepresentation

This becomes particularly serious where the supplier knowingly states:

“OEM genuine”

when it knows that the part is counterfeit.

Potential evidence includes:

emails;

invoices;

certificates;

serial-number records;

supplier databases;

payment records;

communications with MROs;

altered PDFs;

forged signatures;

falsified EASA Form 1 documentation.

The 2026 AOG Technics prosecution demonstrates how forged certification documentation can become central evidence in an aviation-parts investigation. (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary)

16. Product Liability

The claimant normally needs to establish:

1. Product

Aircraft component or other relevant product.

2. Defect

The part did not provide the safety persons were entitled to expect.

3. Damage

For example:

death;

personal injury;

aircraft damage;

other qualifying property damage;

replacement expenditure where legally recoverable.

4. Causation

The defect must legally cause the relevant damage.

A counterfeit component therefore does not automatically produce unlimited product liability for every loss suffered by every participant.

17. Negligence / Delict / Tort

A claim may arise where a participant negligently:

failed to inspect provenance;

failed to verify certification;

ignored suspicious pricing;

failed to check serial numbers;

failed to quarantine suspect parts;

supplied a known unsafe component;

failed to warn downstream users.

The precise test differs among European jurisdictions.

18. Intellectual Property Claims

Counterfeit parts may also involve:

trademark infringement;

design infringement;

copyright infringement;

passing off or equivalent national unfair-competition claims;

customs enforcement.

The Philips/Nokia judgment is particularly useful for understanding EU treatment of counterfeit goods entering or moving through the customs territory. (Infocuria)

19. Certification Fraud Is Particularly Serious

A counterfeit physical part and a genuine part with a forged certificate present different factual problems.

Example

A genuine engine component is stolen.

The criminal supplier:

changes its identification plate;

creates a false maintenance record;

produces a false release certificate;

sells it as an approved component.

The physical object may originally have been genuine.

Nevertheless, the provenance and airworthiness status are compromised.

Therefore litigation may concern:

ownership;

certification;

traceability;

negligence;

fraud;

regulatory compliance;

contract warranties;

product liability.

20. Who Can Be Liable?

A complicated aviation counterfeit claim can involve several defendants.

The Skov and O'Byrne cases demonstrate why identifying the precise position of each entity in the distribution chain is essential. (curia)

21. Damages

Potential losses can include:

Direct losses

purchase price;

replacement parts;

inspection costs;

testing;

quarantine;

removal;

installation;

storage.

Aircraft operational losses

aircraft grounding;

maintenance downtime;

substitute aircraft;

cancellation costs;

delay costs.

Accident losses

aircraft destruction;

passenger injury;

death;

third-party property damage.

Commercial losses

Depending on applicable national law and contractual rules:

loss of revenue;

business interruption;

additional leasing costs;

loss of use.

Regulatory costs

Potentially:

mandatory inspections;

removal campaigns;

certification work;

compliance investigations.

Recoverability depends on the applicable law, contractual allocation of risk, causation, foreseeability and any applicable limitations.

22. Counterfeit Part Discovered Before an Accident

This is an important examination issue.

Suppose an airline discovers:

50 counterfeit fuel-system components installed in its aircraft.

No accident has occurred.

Can the airline claim damages?

Potential claims may concern:

replacement;

inspection;

dismantling;

reinstallation;

aircraft downtime;

contractual losses;

fraud;

regulatory compliance expenses.

The Boston Scientific reasoning is particularly useful by analogy because the CJEU recognised the legal significance of an increased potential for failure within a product group. (Eur-Lex)

But the exact categories of recoverable loss must be determined under the applicable national law and legal cause of action.

23. Counterfeit Part Causes an Aircraft Accident

The litigation becomes much more complex.

The claimant must establish a chain such as:

Counterfeit component

↓

Safety defect

↓

Installation/use

↓

Failure

↓

Aircraft accident

↓

Death/injury/property damage

↓

Financial loss

↓

Legal causation

Expert evidence may be required at every stage.

24. Importance of Traceability

Aviation counterfeit litigation often turns on documents.

Important evidence includes:

part number;

serial number;

batch number;

manufacturer records;

EASA Form 1;

FAA 8130-3 where relevant;

maintenance records;

purchase orders;

invoices;

shipping documents;

warehouse records;

customs declarations;

email correspondence;

inspection reports;

photographs;

identification plates;

supplier approval records.

A broken chain of documentation may itself become evidence relevant to whether reasonable supply-chain controls were followed.

25. The “Chain of Custody” Problem

A typical dispute may look like:

OEM → authorised distributor → broker → secondary broker → MRO → airline

The airline says:

“The part was represented as genuine.”

The broker says:

“We relied on our supplier.”

The secondary broker says:

“We received genuine-looking documentation.”

The MRO says:

“We relied upon the certificate.”

The court must therefore reconstruct the entire supply chain.

This makes documentary discovery and expert evidence extremely important.

26. Counterfeit Parts and Insurance

Several insurance policies may become relevant:

aviation hull insurance;

aviation liability insurance;

product liability insurance;

maintenance liability insurance;

cargo insurance;

business-interruption insurance;

aviation war-risk insurance;

cyber insurance.

An insurer that pays the airline may potentially pursue the responsible supplier through subrogation, subject to the applicable insurance and national civil-law rules.

This can create a second litigation stage:

Airline → insurer

followed by:

Insurer → supplier/manufacturer/trader

27. Contribution Between Multiple Defendants

Suppose:

counterfeit manufacturer = 50% responsibility;

broker = 20%;

MRO = 20%;

airline = 10%.

The precise allocation will depend on applicable national law and the evidence.

Issues may include:

joint liability;

several liability;

contribution;

contractual indemnities;

limitation clauses;

warranty allocation;

insurance.

European courts therefore frequently have to distinguish external liability to the injured party from internal contribution between defendants.

28. Defences

Potential defendants may argue:

A. No defect

The component was technically safe.

B. No causation

The counterfeit status did not cause the accident.

C. Intervening negligence

The MRO improperly installed the component.

D. Misuse

The component was operated outside specifications.

E. No contractual relationship

The claimant purchased from another intermediary.

F. Limitation

The action was brought too late.

G. Identification problem

The defendant was not the producer.

The O'Byrne decision demonstrates the importance of identifying the actual producer and determining when the product entered circulation. (Infocuria)

29. Role of EASA Evidence

EASA's SUP database is highly useful for identifying safety concerns, but there is an important legal qualification.

EASA itself states that its SUP list is maintained for aviation-safety purposes and should not be treated as an allegation of guilt or proof of misconduct. (EASA)

Therefore:

EASA SUP entry ≠ automatic civil liability.

A claimant still needs to establish the relevant elements of the civil claim.

30. Direct and Analogical Case-Law Classification

Important: The first six are primarily product/counterfeit/defect authorities; the last three are aviation-specific analogies. There is not, as of 2026, a mature CJEU body of judgments directly deciding civil damages for counterfeit aircraft components.

31. Hypothetical Example

Facts

An airline buys an engine component through a European distributor.

The distributor provides an apparently valid certification document.

Six months later:

the OEM says the certificate is forged;

the component is not traceable;

EASA issues safety information;

the airline removes the component;

10 aircraft are grounded;

the airline pays €8 million for replacement components;

passengers bring separate claims for cancelled flights.

Possible litigation

Airline v Distributor

breach of contract;

warranty;

misrepresentation;

negligence.

Airline v Manufacturer/Other Supplier

product liability if the legal requirements are satisfied;

tort/delict;

contractual claim if a direct contract exists.

Manufacturer v Counterfeiter

trademark/IP claims;

fraud;

damages.

Insurer v Responsible Supplier

subrogation.

Passengers v Airline

Regulation 261/2004 claims.

Airline v Responsible Supplier

possible recovery of losses caused by the defective/counterfeit component.

The cases above demonstrate why these claims must be separated rather than treated as one single liability question.

32. Legal Test for an Aviation Counterfeit-Part Claim

A useful examination framework is:

Step 1 — Identify the part

What component is involved?

Step 2 — Establish authenticity

Is it counterfeit, stolen, altered, unapproved or merely defective?

Step 3 — Establish provenance

Where did it enter the supply chain?

Step 4 — Identify defendants

Manufacturer, importer, trader, broker, MRO, etc.

Step 5 — Identify legal cause

Contract, product liability, tort/delict, fraud, IP or aviation law.

Step 6 — Prove defect or wrongdoing

Was the component unsafe or was the documentation fraudulent?

Step 7 — Prove causation

Did the component cause the relevant loss?

Step 8 — Prove damage

What financial or physical damage resulted?

Step 9 — Consider defences

Contributory negligence, limitation, contractual exclusions, causation, producer identification.

Step 10 — Consider insurance

Who paid the loss and who has subrogation rights?

33. Conclusion

Aviation supply-chain parts counterfeit litigation in Europe is a multi-layered civil-liability problem rather than a single cause of action.

The central legal issues are:

authenticity of the component;

airworthiness and certification;

traceability;

identity of the responsible supply-chain participant;

contractual warranties;

product defect and safety expectations;

fraud or negligent misrepresentation;

causation;

aircraft and passenger losses;

insurance and subrogation.

The most useful authorities are Boston Scientific, Skov, O'Byrne, Philips/Nokia, Veedfald and Sanofi Pasteur, supplemented by aviation cases such as Wallentin-Hermann and D. (Engine Design Defect). The crucial qualification is that these authorities are largely analogical rather than direct counterfeit-aircraft-parts precedents.

The 2026 AOG Technics proceedings also show that counterfeit aircraft-part schemes can involve enormous supply-chain consequences, but that criminal proceedings should not automatically be treated as establishing civil liability against every participant in the distribution chain. (GOV.UK)

Exam Keywords

Counterfeit aircraft parts — Unapproved Parts — SUP — EASA Form 1 — traceability — forged certification — aviation supply chain — product liability — defective component — producer liability — supplier liability — contract warranty — fraud — misrepresentation — negligence — causation — airworthiness — customs detention — trademark infringement — aircraft grounding — maintenance liability — passenger claims — insurance — subrogation — contribution — damages — chain of custody — safety-critical component.