Mercedes-Benz may have to pay a diesel owner compensation for an illegal defeat device during exhaust gas cleaning. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on Tuesday in a lawsuit filed by a Mercedes buyer against the car manufacturer that the buyer is entitled to compensation if he suffered damage as a result of the defeat device. The Ravensburg Regional Court, which was dealing with the lawsuit, wanted the ECJ to clarify this question. The regional court must now examine the amount of the damage incurred and clarify to what extent this is compensated for by the actual use of the car.
The ECJ is the first supreme court to make a judgment unfavorable to Mercedes-Benz. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) had previously rejected claims for damages because it made intent to damage the buyer a prerequisite for them, but could only see negligence on the part of the car manufacturer. The Federal Court of Justice has scheduled a new hearing for May 8 to discuss “implications for German liability law”. The Karlsruhe judges had put pending cases on hold after the Ravensburg district court had appealed to the ECJ. The BGH itself had not yet submitted the cases to the European court.
Mercedes-Benz said it remains to be seen how national courts will apply the ECJ’s decision. “The ECJ has clearly emphasized that it is only about the damage that a buyer has actually suffered,” added the company. In addition, there must be an impermissible defeat device, which is disputed in the present case.
According to the Berlin law firm Goldenstein, which claims to represent more than 50,000 clients in connection with the diesel emissions scandal, claims for damages can now be enforced more easily. “In future, it would basically only have to be proven that the vehicle in question contained illegal manipulation software at the time of purchase and that the buyer knew nothing about it,” the law firm explained. The BGH must also award owners of diesel vehicles with so-called thermal windows compensation. “Several million people across Europe can benefit from today’s verdict. On the other hand, almost eight years after the emissions scandal became known, another wave of lawsuits is rolling towards the automotive industry,” explained attorney Claus Goldenstein.
Many lawsuits have so far been unsuccessful
The legal battle in the wake of the diesel emissions scandal, which began with Volkswagen’s admission of emissions manipulation in September 2015, represents tens of thousands of lawsuits against Mercedes-Benz and other manufacturers. However, their technology is to be distinguished from the original VW exhaust gas fraud: VW used software to ensure that new models only complied with nitrogen oxide limits for type approval on the test bench, but not on the road. The group paid more than 32 billion euros in fines and compensation.
At Mercedes and other car manufacturers, including VW, the focus is on exhaust gas purification, which only works to a limited extent when the outside temperature is low. According to EU law and the interpretation of the ECJ, throttling is only permitted to prevent damage to the engine, but not its wear. The district court of Ravensburg also rated the exhaust gas cleaning system installed in the C-Class as an inadmissible defeat device.
According to Mercedes-Benz, more than 95 percent of over 30,000 claims for damages have failed, including the few claims that have gone as far as the Federal Court of Justice. Because in his opinion there is only a claim for damages in the case of intent, i.e. deliberate deception of the buyer, but not in the case of negligence. According to German law, liability for negligence requires that the EU regulation on diesel emissions directly protects the interests of the car buyer. According to the Supreme Court, this was not the case. In contrast to the BGH, the ECJ declared that the EU standard for type approval also protects the buyer, because he wants a car that he can drive and sell again at any time in the European Union. However, this is not possible with the inadmissible defeat device, so there is financial damage that must be compensated. “Member States must therefore provide that the purchaser of such a vehicle has a right to compensation from the manufacturer of this vehicle,” said the ECJ. The modalities for this could also be clarified by national courts. (AZ C-100/21)