Euro-5 Diesel im Abgasskandal - Verbraucherschutz Blog - R&U

Erneuter Erfolg im Mercedes-Abgasskandal vor dem BGH

Marco Rogert — Thu, 02 Jun 2022 10:58:29 +0000

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has anew positive for a plaintiff we represented in the Mercedes emissions scandal. This is not the first case we have conducted that has been referred back to the competent lower court for further review by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH ruling of 13 July 2021, Ref. VI ZR 128/20 and Federal Court of Justice decision of February 23, 2022, Ref. VII ZR 602/21). In this decision, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) also ruled that the judgment of the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Koblenz had to be overturned and referred back to the Court of Appeal for a new decision (BGH decision of 20 April 2022, Ref. No. VII ZR 720/21). Specifically, the case concerns a used Mercedes-Benz GLK 220 CDI BE 4M (emission class Euro 5). The vehicle is equipped with a Diesel engine type OM 651 equipped.

Both the Regional Court and the Higher Regional Court had previously dismissed the plaintiff's claim and had not awarded him any damages. However, the Federal Court of Justice criticised the plaintiff's factual submission that Exhaust gas purification The driver's vehicle's performance is controlled by a software function that detects whether the vehicle is on the test bench and, in this case, activates a coolant target temperature control (CTC). When a CTC is activated, nitrogen oxide emissions are reduced to the permissible level.

BGH considers immoral behavior to be given

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) stated that a mandatory recall by the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) does not sufficiently establish the existence of an inadmissible defeat device. Rather, according to established case law of the highest courts, circumstances must exist that make the conduct of the persons involved appear particularly reprehensible (cf. BGH ruling of September 16, 2021, Ref. No. VII ZR 190/20). By using a Test bench recognition software According to the BGH, however, this would constitute immoral conduct.

The KBA has been investigating since autumn 2018 on suspicion of impermissible shutdown device against Daimler AG. The use of a software, which detects whether the vehicle is on the test bench and then reduces nitrogen oxide emissions, appears to be immoral according to the Federal Court of Justice. Nitrogen oxide emissions are thus only minimized on the test bench and not in real driving conditions on the roads. There, the legal limit of 180 mg/km is significantly exceeded. The KSR keeps the coolant circuit artificially colder and delays the warming up of the engine oil. This results in significantly lower NOx formation and compliance with the limit values on the test bench. However, if the engine is started without the test bench detection software, the KSR does not take effect. The result: The coolant and engine oil heat up more quickly and nitrogen oxide emissions are higher.

Rogert & Ulbrich recommends Mercedes drivers

If you are the owner of an affected vehicle with Engine type OM651 you should now Chance of a possible compensationThe law firm Rogert & Ulbrich was the first law firm in Germany to be able topositive decisionbefore the Federal Court of Justice in a Daimler case. Please contact us and let usyour demandscheck without obligation and free of charge.

OLG München: Berufung der Audi AG zurückgewiesen

Marco Rogert — Thu, 19 May 2022 07:00:00 +0000

The Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Munich rejected Audi AG's appeal by decision of May 11, 2022 (decision of May 11, 2022, ref. 3 U 742/22). The Regional Court (LG) of Ingolstadt had previously awarded a plaintiff represented by us damages of € 9,171.61 against return of the vehicle (judgment of January 26, 2022, ref. 33 O 2523/20). The vehicle in dispute is a Audi A8 3.0, which the plaintiff had purchased for a purchase price of € 20,850. The vehicle is equipped with a 3.0 liter V6 turbo diesel engine with an output of 184 kW. The mileage at the time of purchase was 96,000 km. At the time of the judgment, the mileage was stated as 210,494 km.

Recall of the KBA as sufficient reason

Audi AG claims that the gearshift point control of the transmission is not part of the emissions control system. In addition, according to Audi, the plaintiff had not provided sufficient substantiation, so that an appeal was necessary.

The Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) had recall 23X6 one impermissible shutdown device or an inadmissible reduction in the effectiveness of the emissions control system was found. Both the regional court and the higher regional court based their decision on the recall notice, which shows that an inadmissible switch-off device was installed to adjust the emissions behavior. This switch-off device means that the exhaust emissions are only reduced on the test bench.

Audi AG acted intentionally and immorally by putting vehicles on the market for years that only met the prescribed emissions standards on the test bench. The type approval was therefore obtained through deception.

Rogert & Ulbrich recommends Audi drivers

Do you drive an Audi and have received a recall letter from the manufacturer? Then you should act now and contact us get advice. Current case law also shows that your chances have never been better.Prevent your potential claims for damages from becoming time-barred and have them filed with us free and non-binding check.

Urteil gegen Daimler AG – vorsätzlich sittenwidrige Schädigung

Marco Rogert — Thu, 10 Feb 2022 08:12:31 +0000

In its judgment of January 28, 2022, the Stuttgart Regional Court ordered Daimler AG to pay the plaintiff represented by us damages of € 13,526 against return of the vehicle (case number 17 O 711/19). The vehicle in question is a Mercedes Benz GLK 220 CDI 4Matic of the Euro 5 emissions class. The affected Mercedes has a OM651 engine The plaintiff bought this as a new car for a purchase price of € 47,349.

The LG affirmed a claim for damages pursuant to. § 826 BGB for intentional immoral damage. The vehicle in question did not comply with the requirements of the EC Regulation 715/2007According to this regulation, manufacturers are obliged, among other things, to comply with the specified limit values and not to impermissible shutdown deviceswhich reduce the effectiveness of emission control systems. Vehicles must therefore comply with the specified limit values under normal operating conditions.

Daimler AG violated EC Regulation 715/2007 with the vehicle in question. The vehicle was not equipped accordingly, so that the legally stipulated limit values for nitrogen oxide emissions were not met under normal operating conditions.

Implied deception through placing on the market

The fact that Daimler AG has placed the vehicle on the market represents an implicit deception. Placing the vehicle on the market signals that "the vehicle complies with the applicable regulations and fulfils its objective purpose of being used on the road".

This deception caused the buyer concrete damage. If the limits are not complied with, there is a risk of the registration being revoked and the vehicle being taken out of service. This would result in a significant loss of value. The plaintiff therefore bought a vehicle that did not correspond to the contract.

The chances of suing Daimler AG are increasing enormously!

More and more courts are ordering Daimler AG to pay damages. This fact increases the chances for all Daimler drivers enormously. We therefore recommend that you let your claims Check with us free of charge and without obligation.

VTDI-Abgasskandal rund um VW, Audi und Porsche

Marco Rogert — Thu, 13 Jan 2022 12:52:14 +0000

For many German car manufacturers, the diesel emissions scandal is still omnipresent, including the VW Group around the subsidiary brands Audi and PorscheAfter the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) announced on its website at the beginning of 2018 that several illegal switch-off devices had been found in vehicles with a 3l or 4.2l VTDI engine As far as I could tell, some owners of affected vehicles were only informed about this in 2019 with an “individual” letter. The result: A mandatory recall in the form of a (mandatory) software updateAnyone who fails to comply with the manufacturer's request risks having the affected vehicle taken out of service by the local registration authority.

Another consequence of the letters sent to vehicle owners in 2019 could now be that any claims for damages against the manufacturers of affected vehicles could become time-barred at the end of this year. Anyone who still wants to assert their claim for damages should definitely do so this year.

Numerous judgments have already been won against VW, Audi and Porsche

In the past, we have succeeded in a number of positive judgments Claims for damages of up to €50,000 and more were enforced not only against the VW subsidiaries Audi and Porsche, but also against the parent company Volkswagen.

Among other things, we were able to obtain damages of over €72,000 for our client before the Berlin Regional Court (case no. 7 O 118/19). The subject of the dispute was a Porsche Macan S 3.0 TDI, in which the illegal switch-off devices identified by the KBA were installed. Before the Ingolstadt Regional Court (case no. 43 O 741/19), we were also able to obtain damages of over €68,000 from Audi AG for an affected Audi A6 3.0 BiTurbo. We were also recently able to obtain damages of over €49,000 from Volkswagen AG for a VW Touareg 3.0 TDI before the Bonn Regional Court (case no. 2 O 246/21). According to the judge's statements, the fact that Audi AG is responsible for the manufacture of the VTDI engines does not exclude a claim for damages against Volkswagen AG according to the plaintiff's submission.

Federal Court of Justice also grants claim for reduced value

Another possibility for compensation is the so-called "small damages". In its ruling of July 6, 2021 (case number VI ZR 40/20), the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled that instead of reversing the transaction, injured buyers of affected vehicles can also claim the reduced value caused by the inadmissible switch-off devices, i.e. the so-called "small damages". The advantage: affected vehicle owners can keep their vehicle and still be compensated. The amount by which the value of the vehicle has been reduced can be estimated without an expensive appraisal, for example based on a percentage of the purchase price.

Rogert & Ulbrich recommends

Do you drive an affected VW, Audi or Porsche and have received a recall letter from the manufacturer in 2019? Then you should act quickly, especially in view of the impending statute of limitations, andchances of successhave us check it.Current case law also shows that your chances have never been better.Prevent your potential claims for damages from becoming time-barred and let us examine them free of charge and without obligation.

Dieselskandal in 2022 – Wie geht es weiter?

Marco Rogert — Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:27:29 +0000

What will happen next in the diesel emissions scandal? The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has already clarified some fundamental questions in the diesel scandal in 2021. But there are still more events planned in Karlsruhe this year. On February 10, 2022, it will be clarified whether claims for damages have expired and what the remaining damages are. At the hearing, 5 cases will be dealt with directly and a decision will be made as to when the three-year limitation period for claims for damages by the vehicle buyer against Volkswagen AG began and whether, in the event of the limitation period, there is a claim for so-called residual damages under Section 852 S. 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB).

The affected vehicles were all purchased second-hand and diesel engines of the EA189 series (EU 5) equipped.

Does VW have to pay remaining compensation?

In the so-called "residual damages claim" According to § 852 BGB, this is a claim based on unlawful acts, which can still be claimed even after the statute of limitations has expired. This claim only expires in ten years from its creation.

The claims from the 5 proceedings were rejected in the previous instances due to the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations began in 2015, since from October 2015 onwards the plaintiffs were at least grossly negligent in their ignorance of the facts required for the statute of limitations to begin. The diesel scandal was omnipresent in media reports, so the plaintiffs must have been aware of it. There is also no claim under Section 852 S. 1 of the German Civil Code, since this claim does not apply to used cars.

However, it remains questionable whether the courts can assume that the plaintiffs knew about the diesel scandal simply because of the extensive media coverage. Therefore, there is a need for further clarification in the diesel scandal, on which the judges of the Federal Court of Justice will comment.

It also remains questionable how Karlsruhe will comment on the claim under Section 852 S. 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) with regard to used cars. In some cases, residual compensation is granted for used cars. In the case of a used car deal in which the plaintiff purchases the vehicle from a used car dealer or a private vehicle owner, the defendant has not gained anything. However, this should not preclude the claim for legal damages. The defendant has not gained any income directly from the plaintiff, but rather from the original contractual partner. This should be sufficient to justify a claim for residual damages. When the vehicle was resold by the original purchaser to the plaintiff, the inflow of assets was maintained.

It will therefore remain exciting in 2022 to see how the Federal Court of Justice will comment on this and how the diesel scandal will continue.

Rogert & Ulbrich recommends for 2022

We at Rogert & Ulbrich recommend having your claims reviewed. Even if you think your claims have expired, it may be worth having them reviewed again. Our initial consultation is free and non-binding. We have already been able to numerous judgments for our plaintiffs and have been involved in the diesel emissions scandal since the beginning. Get advice without obligation.

Urteil gegen Daimler AG – Schadensersatz für Mercedes Sprinter

Marco Rogert — Wed, 17 Nov 2021 08:16:46 +0000

The Freiburg Regional Court ordered Daimler AG to pay damages of € 82,592 to a plaintiff in return for the return of the vehicles (judgment of October 18, 2021, case number 6 O 149/19). The case concerned three Mercedes Sprinter 316 CDIThe plaintiff purchased the three vehicles between February 2016 and August 2018 for a total price of € 111,960. The Sprinter class vehicles have the engine typeOM 651(Euro 6 and Euro 5). This engine is said to be equipped with various illegal switch-off devices. The nitrogen oxide emissions are controlled via the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). The EGR is controlled by the outside temperature.

One of the plaintiff’s Mercedes Sprinters is also subject to a mandatory recall by the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA).

Intentional and immoral actions by Daimler AG

The Freiburg Regional Court sees in this case an intentional immoral injury to the plaintiff according to § 826 BGB due to the use of impermissible switch-off devices. The plaintiff has therefore already suffered damage through the purchase, as the vehicle did not comply with the legal requirements of EC Regulation 715/2007. The Regional Court also evaluates, among other things, the coolant target temperature control, the thermal window and the different operating modes of the SCR catalyst as an inadmissible switch-off device.

The coolant target temperature control means that the temperature of the coolant and the engine oil is artificially kept low at the start of the engine operation. This results in low emissions of nitrogen oxides. In real driving conditions, however, this function is deactivated and the legal limit of 180 mg/km is significantly exceeded. The thermal window also manipulates the exhaust gas purification, because here too optimization only takes place on the test bench and not in real driving conditions.
One of the vehicles also has an SCR catalyst. The urea mixture AdBlue is used to clean the engine's exhaust gases. Here, too, there are different operating modes that influence and ultimately manipulate the exhaust gas purification.

Chances against Daimler AG increase enormously

If you are the owner of an affected Sprinter, you should now chance of possible compensation We offer you, without obligation and free of charge, to have your claims checked. Thanks to our specially created database, we can immediately track whether your vehicle is also affected.

Daimler AG rückt immer mehr in den Fokus

Marco Rogert — Thu, 11 Nov 2021 08:10:00 +0000

The Stuttgart Regional Court convicted the Daimler Group in two proceedings conducted by us, each time requiring payment of damages and the return of the vehicles.

The first trial involved a Mercedes-Benz GLK 220 with the emission class Euro 5 from 2015. The plaintiff had the car with the engine OM651 in July 2016 for € 34,700 and drove almost 52,000 km with it (judgment of October 13, 2021, case number 20 O 133/20). Now Daimler AG has to pay him almost € 27,000 and take the car back. Daimler AG asked our client for the first time in March 2019 to voluntary software update (promotion code 54 961 27) to play.

We carried out the second procedure for the driver of a Mercedes-Benz B 200 CDI, emission class 5 and year of manufacture 2010. The car is equipped with a OM640 engine Here, the Daimler Group was ordered to pay € 9,872 and also to take back the car. Our client had bought the car used in 2013 for € 17,400 and drove it almost 85,000 km (LG Stuttgart dated October 21, 2021, ref. 20 O 417/21).

In its reasoning, the court assumed that the vehicles did not comply with the European legal requirements of Regulation (EC) No. 715/2007, according to which they must not exceed the legally defined limit values under normal operating conditions.

The Chamber further states that the Daimler AG produced and placed both vehicles on the market without the necessary prerequisite being met, namely that the nitrogen oxide emissions in real driving under normal operating conditions and not only comply with the limit values on the test bench.
The continued existence of the so-called EC type approval depends to a large extent on compliance with this requirement. If the approval is revoked, however, every owner faces the risk of having their vehicle taken out of service, which could lead to a massive loss in value.

Negligent violation by Daimler AG

Daimler AG would at least be negligent in its responsibility for this violation.

Finally, in accordance with common practice, given the importance of European regulations and the high level of environmental protection, but also in order to provide consumers with correct information, Daimler would have had to study Regulation (EC) No. 715/2007 and its legal framework in detail. The court found that Daimler's reliance on the idea that passing the bench tests was enough did not meet this high standard of care.

Rogert & Ulbrich recommends

We are the pioneers in the diesel emissions scandal – also against Daimler AG. We can also say that we are the first law firm in Germany to positive decision before the Federal Court of Justice in a Daimler case. This is not only an enormous success for us as a law firm, but above all an incredible success for every affected and injured vehicle owner. We recommend that you let your claims Check with us free of charge and without obligation.

Euro-5 Diesel im Abgasskandal - Verbraucherschutz Blog - R&U

Erneuter Erfolg im Mercedes-Abgasskandal vor dem BGH

BGH considers immoral behavior to be given

Rogert & Ulbrich recommends Mercedes drivers

You might also be interested in:

OLG München: Berufung der Audi AG zurückgewiesen

Recall of the KBA as sufficient reason

Rogert & Ulbrich recommends Audi drivers

You might also be interested in:

Urteil gegen Daimler AG – vorsätzlich sittenwidrige Schädigung

Implied deception through placing on the market

The chances of suing Daimler AG are increasing enormously!

You might also be interested in:

VTDI-Abgasskandal rund um VW, Audi und Porsche

Numerous judgments have already been won against VW, Audi and Porsche

Rogert & Ulbrich recommends

You might also be interested in:

Dieselskandal in 2022 – Wie geht es weiter?

Does VW have to pay remaining compensation?

Rogert & Ulbrich recommends for 2022

You might also be interested in:

Urteil gegen Daimler AG – Schadensersatz für Mercedes Sprinter

Intentional and immoral actions by Daimler AG

Chances against Daimler AG increase enormously

You might also be interested in:

Daimler AG rückt immer mehr in den Fokus

Negligent violation by Daimler AG

Rogert & Ulbrich recommends

You might also be interested in: