The case concerns a Mercedes GLC 220 d 4Matic with the OM 651 diesel engine. The vehicle was equipped with a SCR system equipped for exhaust gas purification using AdBlue. However, in the court's opinion, the specific design of the SCR control – in particular the switching logic between different dosing modes – constituted a impermissible shutdown device This led to exhaust gas purification being restricted under certain conditions, which could result in higher nitrogen oxide levels in real-world driving than on the test bench.

The plaintiff, represented by the Rogert & Ulbrich Law Firm, Mercedes-Benz subsequently demanded damages. While the Erfurt Regional Court had already ruled in favor of the buyer in the first instance, Mercedes-Benz appealed – but without success. The Jena Higher Regional Court essentially upheld the first-instance ruling and clarified that Mercedes was liable to the plaintiff for damages based on a negligent violation of Section 823 Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) in conjunction with Sections 6 and 27 of the EC Vehicle Approval Regulation (EG-FGV) liable.

The judges considered it proven that Mercedes had failed to provide the buyer with a incorrect certificate of conformity The company had been granted a permit because the vehicle had been put into circulation with an illegal emissions control system. Neither the approval by the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) nor the subsequent software update changed the liability. The company's attempt to plead a so-called mistake of law was also unsuccessful.

Conclusion

The ruling is another important victory for affected diesel owners. It shows that even after software updates, manufacturers remain liable if the exhaust gas purification system continues to be technically manipulated. Affected buyers can therefore continue to successfully pursue their claims. Claims for damages against Mercedes-Benz assert your claim.

Der Beitrag OLG Jena verurteilt Mercedes-Benz im Dieselverfahren – Kläger erhält Schadensersatz wegen unzulässiger Abschalteinrichtung erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Judgment of the Saarbrücken Regional Court

The consignor, as defined by the CMR, is the person who has entered into a contract of carriage with the carrier. The seller, who is listed on the consignment note and sells the goods EXW, is not a contractual partner of the carrier. Therefore, the seller cannot assert any claims for damages against the CMR carrier in such a case.

Conclusion

The Saarbrücken Regional Court ruled that the seller who sells the goods under the EXW clause and is registered as such in the consignment note is not considered a contractual partner of the carrier. Therefore, in this case, the seller cannot assert claims for damages against the CMR carrier, since, according to the CMR, only the consignor who has concluded a contract of carriage with the carrier is entitled to make such claims.

Der Beitrag Zur Bedeutung von Incoterms-Klauseln im Rahmen des Frachtvertrages erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Judgment of the Düsseldorf Regional Court

An obligation to exchange pallets can also be effectively established through general terms and conditions. This requires that compensation is provided for the pallet exchange; this does not need to be stated separately. For the inclusion of general terms and conditions in commercial transactions, a mere reference to their validity is sufficient; unsolicited transmission is not required. The decisive factor for effectiveness is the specific design in each individual case.

Conclusion

The Düsseldorf Regional Court ruled that an obligation to exchange pallets can also be validly established through general terms and conditions, provided that compensation for the exchange is provided for, which does not need to be separately disclosed. For general terms and conditions to apply in commercial transactions, a mere reference to their application is sufficient; unsolicited communication is not necessary. The decisive factor remains the specific wording of the clause in each individual case.

Der Beitrag Zur Wirksamkeit von Palettentauschklauseln in AGB erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Judgment of the Düsseldorf Regional Court

Following the invalid termination of a logistics contract, it is the claimant's responsibility to provide all necessary supporting facts for the loss of profit claimed. In this respect, it is not sufficient to assert an average net profit after deducting all costs without providing the supporting facts relevant for verification. Based on such general statements, an estimate of damages pursuant to Section 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) is also not possible.

Conclusion

The Düsseldorf Regional Court clarified that in order to assert claims for damages following an invalid termination, it is necessary to present concrete facts relating to the lost profit. General information, such as average net profit without a detailed breakdown, is not sufficient. An estimate of damages pursuant to Section 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) is also not possible in such cases.

Der Beitrag Zu Schadensersatzansprüchen nach Kündigung eines Logistikvertrages erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Judgment of the Bremen Regional Court

An obligation of the carrier, contained in the sender's general terms and conditions, to park the vehicle only in video-monitored parking areas during transport is neither surprising according to Section 305c of the German Civil Code (BGB), nor does it unreasonably disadvantage the carrier according to Section 307 of the German Civil Code (BGB).

If there are no video-monitored parking spaces on the transport route, the carrier must refuse the order or take other alternative security measures, e.g. employ a second driver.

If the carrier nevertheless accepts the order, it must, in any case, obtain instructions from the consignor regarding how to proceed with the transport order prior to carrying it out, in accordance with Articles 14 (1) and 12 (1) of the CMR. Article 14 (1) of the CMR applies accordingly if the conditions of carriage that cannot be met are not apparent from the consignment note, but otherwise, carriage in accordance with the contract is not possible.

Conclusion

The Bremen Regional Court concluded that a clause requiring the carrier to park the vehicle only in video-monitored parking areas is neither surprising nor unreasonably discriminatory. If no suitable parking space is available along the transport route, the carrier is obligated to refuse the order or implement alternative security measures. Otherwise, it must obtain instructions from the sender before carrying out the order to ensure proper continuation of the transport.

Der Beitrag Zur Wirksamkeit einer AGB-Klausel zum Abstellen von Fahrzeugen nur auf videoüberwachten Parkplätzen erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Munich

A provision in the general terms and conditions according to which the driver may only drive to guarded parking spaces constitutes a surprising clause within the meaning of Section 305 c Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) and therefore does not become part of the contract if the carrier was not informed of this provision either in the transport order or verbally before the conclusion of the contract.

The security precautions that the carrier must take to fulfill its contractual obligation to protect the goods entrusted to it from theft during transport depend on the circumstances of the individual case. The decisive factor is whether the measures taken meet the standards of care required for the transport to be carried out. The greater the risks associated with the transport of goods, the higher the demands placed on the security measures to be taken. Of considerable importance in this context are whether the transported goods are easily usable and therefore particularly vulnerable to theft, their value, whether the carrier had to be aware of the particular risk, and what specific options existed for a secure break in the journey in order to comply with prescribed rest periods.

If the freight carrier is unaware that they are transporting goods at risk of theft and the transport order only refers to "groupage," they cannot be expected to implement increased security measures. If they take their rest at a rest stop that is open throughout the night and choose a parking space in an area where several trucks are parked side by side, they cannot be accused of aggravated negligence.

Conclusion

The decision of the Munich Higher Regional Court shows that clauses in general terms and conditions that require the driver to use only guarded parking lots are invalid if they were not communicated to the carrier prior to the conclusion of the contract. With regard to theft during transport, the carrier is only liable if it was aware of an increased risk of theft or if it failed to take appropriate security precautions in a dangerous situation. However, if the carrier is not informed of the risk of theft and chooses a suitable rest area to comply with rest periods, it cannot be accused of qualified negligence.

Der Beitrag Zum qualifiziertes Verschulden des Frachtführers bei Diebstahl aus einem über Nacht abgestellten LKW an einer italienischen Raststätte; Wirksamkeit einer AGB-Klausel, wonach der Fahrer nur bewachte Parkplätze anfahren darf erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Verdict

By judgment of March 18, 2025, the Administrative Court dismissed Amazon Europe Core SARL's appeal against the decision of the National Commission for Data Protection (CNPD) of July 15, 2021. This decision imposed an administrative fine of EUR 746,000,000, ordered remedial measures subject to a penalty of EUR 746,000 per day, and ordered the publication of this decision.

The Court confirmed the CNPD's analysis that Amazon Europe Core SARL had infringed Articles 6, 12 to 17 and 21 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (GDPR) when processing personal data for interest-based advertising purposes.

The violations alleged against Amazon Europe Core SARL concern non-compliance with the legal basis for the processing of personal data, non-compliance with the transparency and information obligations towards the persons affected by the processing of their personal data, violation of the right of access to the data processed, violation of the right to rectification and erasure of the personal data processed and violation of the right to object to the processing of personal data.

The Court also found that Amazon Europe Core SARL had failed to take the necessary corrective measures to comply with Articles 6, 12 to 17 and 21 of the GDPR.

The court finally ordered the suspensive effect of the appeal during the time limit and the appeal proceedings.

An appeal against the Administrative Court’s judgment of 18 March 2025 may be lodged with the Administrative Court of Appeal.

Translated from French: https://justice.public.lu/fr/actualites/2025/03/tribunal-administratif-jugement-amazon-amende-cnpd.html

Conclusion

The Administrative Court's ruling underscores the importance of strict compliance with GDPR requirements, particularly with regard to transparency, information obligations, and the rights of data subjects. The decision makes it clear that companies like Amazon face significant consequences if they violate data protection regulations. The imposed fine and the remedial measures ordered send a clear signal about the importance of data protection at the European level.

Der Beitrag Verwaltungsgericht bestätigt hohe Geldstrafe gegen Amazon wegen Verstößen gegen die DSGVO erschien zuerst auf R&U.