Plant in Untertürkheim
The car manufacturer failed with his complaint to the Federal Motor Transport Authority.
(Photo: dpa)
Cologne Daimler has not been successful with its contradictions against the diesel recalls by the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA). The authority has rejected almost all of the carmaker’s objections to the notices. According to the authority, Daimler has used an impermissible exhaust technology in hundreds of thousands of Mercedes-Benz diesel vehicles. First, the “Spiegel” and the Bavarian radio had reported about it.
The recalls affected around 1.4 million vehicles produced across the EU, around 600,000 of them in Germany. Daimler considers the functions to be permissible and, although recalling the vehicles, had objected to all of the notices. You now check the reasons and decide on the appeal, said the group. A lawsuit is possible as a further legal remedy, said the Ministry of Transport. The KBA notices are not legally binding for that long.
Plaintiffs attorneys see the decision as a breakthrough. “The chances of successfully enforcing claims for damages increase enormously for Mercedes-Benz owners,” says Claus Goldenstein. His law firm represents thousands of diesel plaintiffs against various car companies.
The lawyer also obtained the first landmark judgment from the Federal Court of Justice in the emissions scandal against VW. The Wolfsburg-based car manufacturer has now compensated more than 200,000 customers in Germany. They had joined a test case of the consumer advice center, which ended with a settlement.
Top jobs of the day
Find the best jobs now and be notified by email.
No test case is currently running against Daimler. The group emphasizes that it wins the vast majority of the proceedings before the courts. However, the case law is not uniform. In January, the Federal Court of Justice ruled on Daimler’s liability for the use of a thermal window for the first time as part of a non-admission complaint. In it, the Karlsruhe judges rejected the dismissal decision of the Cologne Higher Regional Court due to violation of the right to be heard and referred the matter back.
From Daimler’s point of view, together with the current decision by the KBA, this is quite explosive. Because the BGH did not rule out liability in the case from the outset. The decisive factor is whether Daimler has “provided incorrect information about the functioning of the exhaust gas recirculation system in the type approval process”.
With agency material.
More: Controversial thermal window: Why VW, Daimler and Co. could face a new wave of lawsuits