Audi zahlt erneut Schadensersatz: 53.000+ EUR

53,000+ EUR for the consumer.

Once again, a Audi Driver in his lawsuit in the emissions scandal. The Ingolstadt Regional Court sentenced Audi AG to take back an Audi A6 with a 3.0l engine and to pay a Compensation of 53,859 euros.

The plaintiff purchased the vehicle in February 2015 for €71,121.85 and has driven nearly 72,000 km since then. These vehicles were recalled by the Federal Motor Transport Authority. The recall, with recall number 23X6, specifically refers to the removal of the illegal defeat device. A software update would be necessary to remove the manipulation software.

Audi AG itself admits that, on the orders of the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA), it is updating the engine software for vehicles of the type in question. Against this background, Audi AG's denial in the lawsuit that the vehicle in question did not contain an illegal defeat device was insufficient and legally irrelevant.

According to the court, the manufacture and marketing of diesel engines using engine control software that lowers nitrogen oxide levels in comparison between test bench runs and real-world driving conditions fulfills the requirements for immoral, intentional harm to the respective buyers within the meaning of Section 826 of the German Civil Code (BGB). The sole motive for marketing the manipulated vehicles was the desire to reduce costs and maximize profits. Furthermore, Audi fraudulently obtained EC type approval for all vehicles equipped with the engine control software from the relevant issuing authorities, the ruling stated.

The ruling shows once again – checking the legal situation is worthwhile for the consumer

The court left no doubt that the management board was aware of this manipulation. First, at the time the engine was developed and installed, the conflict between the goal of achieving the lowest possible carbon dioxide emissions and limiting nitrogen oxide emissions was generally known and should have prompted an investigation; second, at that time, the European legislature was enacting a ban on illegal defeat devices. Since those responsible nevertheless issued the certificate of conformity or failed to prevent its issuance despite the obvious possibility that such a device could be used, they should be held responsible for at least conditional intent through omission.

This judgment also shows once again that a review of the legal situation pays off for the consumer. If the trend in these proceedings continues and Audi does not appeal, we can be more than satisfied with our work.