The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled in favor of a diesel owner in a dispute with Mercedes-Benz. According to this, the car manufacturer must pay a customer compensation because an illegal defeat device is installed in the exhaust gas cleaning system. The ECJ ruled on Tuesday that the buyer is entitled to compensation if the defeat device has caused him a disadvantage. The Ravensburg District Court, which was dealing with the complaint of a Mercedes driver, wanted the Luxembourg judges to clarify this question. The procedure is now referred back to the district court after the landmark decision. The core issue is now to quantify the possible damage for the customer. “We still consider the claims asserted against our company in the context of diesel customer lawsuits to be unfounded,” said a spokesman for Mercedes-Benz on request. The affected vehicles are largely stable in value.
The spokesman also said the company continues to believe that there is no illegal defeat device in the case. The Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) did not even recall the vehicle.
The statement cannot hide the fact that the ECJ inflicted a heavy defeat on Mercedes. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has so far rejected claims for damages. For such claims, the Karlsruhe court assumed that the buyer had been deliberately deceived. Because the car manufacturer could be accused of negligence at best, the plaintiffs usually failed.
Significantly improved chances of success for lawsuits
The ECJ, as the first supreme court, now sees things differently. The car manufacturer could also be held liable if they had simply acted negligently without any intention of fraud.
We still consider the claims asserted against our company as part of diesel customer lawsuits to be unfounded. spokesman for Mercedes-Benz
Consumer advocates assume that the chances of success for affected diesel drivers before German judges have now improved significantly. “Today’s decision makes it easier than ever to enforce claims for damages because of the emissions scandal,” says Claus Goldenstein, who represents several thousand plaintiffs.
The Federal Court of Justice set comparatively high hurdles, explains Goldenstein. “These hurdles are gone now because immoral or intentional damage is no longer important.”
Because the judgment from Luxembourg was pending, courts of all instances had put mass diesel proceedings on hold in which this question is important. At the BGH alone, more than 1900 revisions and non-admission complaints are pending.
Decision also relevant for other manufacturers
The “Diesel Senate” of the BGH has already scheduled a hearing for May 8, in which it intends to discuss the “possible consequences for German liability law” in order to provide the lower instances with guidelines as quickly as possible. Because the ECJ judgment has by no means answered all questions. For example, it is unclear how much money affected car buyers are entitled to.
diesel process
1900
cases
of revisions and non-admission complaints are currently pending at the Federal Court of Justice.
The background to the proceedings was a claim for damages from Germany against Mercedes-Benz because of a so-called thermal window. These are part of the engine control, which throttle the exhaust gas cleaning at cooler temperatures.
Automakers argue thermal windows are necessary to protect the engine. “A bogus argument,” says Thorsten Krause from the law firm KAP, which represents a number of diesel plaintiffs. “Thermal windows were not absolutely necessary, but probably just the fastest and cheapest alternative in development,” says Krause.
Environmental organizations also see it as an instrument that helps to make car emissions appear lower under test conditions than they are in real traffic. The critics of the thermal window now see themselves confirmed by the ECJ decision. “All temperature-controlled shutdown devices that are activated under normal operating conditions are therefore not permitted,” says Krause.
Today’s decision makes it easier than ever to enforce claims for damages due to the emissions scandal. Claus Goldenstein, consumer advocate
Thermal windows were also used as standard by other manufacturers. Since the ECJ ruling relates to unlawful defeat devices in general, it could also be transferrable to other functionalities in the exhaust technology of diesel cars, which are currently being scrutinized by the courts.
The German Environmental Aid recently sued the KBA because of the thermal window. In 2016, the authorities allowed Volkswagen to let the manipulated diesel vehicles back on the road – although illegal defeat devices such as the thermal window were still in place. The lobbyists did not want to accept this – and won in the first instance before the Schleswig-Holstein administrative court.
With agency material
More: ECJ declares thermal windows in VW diesel engines inadmissible