Public prosecutor may access VW documents

D The Federal Constitutional Court has allowed the public prosecutor’s office Munich II access to highly explosive documents in the diesel scandal. As the court announced on Friday, the constitutional complaints are the Volkswagen AG and their American law firm Jones Day failed to defend themselves against a raid in March 2017 and data seizure.

The American law firm had investigated internally at Volkswagen in the exhaust gas scandal and was looking for the person responsible for the manipulations. The results of the investigations has VW not published, there is no final report, according to the company. The findings of Jones Day, however, flowed into the January 2017 comparison of the company with the US judiciary. The documents of Jones Day could now become an important part of the investigation in Munich, is heard from legal circles. Currently, the seated in custody, on leave Audi chief executive Rupert Stadler is interrogated. At the end of June Wolfgang Hatz was released on bail from pre-trial detention. The former head of engine development at Audi and former Porsche development board member had served 9 months.

So far it was not possible for the prosecutors to access the documents obtained during the raid. By interim arrangement had the Federal Constitutional Court At the beginning of 2018, 185 files had been deposited at the district court in Munich. As expected, the authority welcomed the message from Karlsruhe now. They were received positively because they confirmed the legal opinion of the prosecutor, said senior prosecutor Andrea Mayer. Jones Day did not respond to a request. Volkswagen only published a brief explanation. The company “welcomes” that “the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court has now clarified the open legal issues”.

The decisions of the Karlsruhe judges allege that Volkswagen is not violated either in the right to informational self-determination or in the right to a fair trial. Jones Day is not entitled to appeal because of its legal form as a partnership under US law, even its lawyers lack the power.

The fact that the judges did not share the view of VW and Jones Day, who wanted to keep the information under wraps, should also have far-reaching consequences for the business concept with “internal investigations” by American law firms. Because the law firms are not “domestic legal persons”, they can not rely on the protection of the Basic Law. This can be a competitive advantage for German law firms, which are also active in the exhaust gas scandal as an internal reconnaissance. Nevertheless, Heiner Hugger, Partner of Clifford Chance, said: “Internal investigations will continue to be required to investigate potential criminal offenses or compliance violations, particularly due to investigations by US authorities.” Friday’s rulings mean “no end to internal investigations,” he said hugger.

On the other hand, Michael Kubiciel, law professor at the University of Augsburg, regretted the decision. “The decision hides part of the reality of internal investigations in corporations. In addition, he leaves it to a large extent the decisions of prosecutors, when a ban on confiscation arises. “The ball is now in the legislative field, said Kubiciel. An adaptation of how companies are sanctioned and their rights are urgently needed.