<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>OLG Jena Archive - R&amp;U</title>
	<atom:link href="https://ru.law/en/tag/olg-jena/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://ru.law/en/tag/olg-jena/</link>
	<description>Consumer lawyers</description>
	<lastbuilddate>Thu, 13 Nov 2025 13:24:59 +0000</lastbuilddate>
	<language>en-GB</language>
	<sy:updateperiod>
	hourly	</sy:updateperiod>
	<sy:updatefrequency>
	1	</sy:updatefrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.5</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>OLG Jena verurteilt Mercedes-Benz im Dieselverfahren – Kläger erhält Schadensersatz wegen unzulässiger Abschalteinrichtung</title>
		<link>https://ru.law/en/olg-jena-verurteilt-mercedes-benz-im-dieselverfahren-klaeger-erhaelt-schadensersatz-wegen-unzulaessiger-abschalteinrichtung/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stefan Selge]]></dc:creator>
		<pubdate>Tue, 11 Nov 2025 08:44:23 +0000</pubdate>
				<category><![CDATA[Automotive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Urteile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abschalteinrichtung]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mercedes Diesel Urteil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OLG Jena]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Schadensersatz]]></category>
		<guid ispermalink="false">https://ru.law/?p=94719</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The Thuringian Higher Regional Court in Jena (Case No. 10 U 49/24) delivered a favorable ruling for consumers in the diesel emissions scandal on November 4, 2025: The Mercedes-Benz Group […]</p>
<p>Der Beitrag <a href="https://ru.law/en/olg-jena-verurteilt-mercedes-benz-im-dieselverfahren-klaeger-erhaelt-schadensersatz-wegen-unzulaessiger-abschalteinrichtung/">OLG Jena verurteilt Mercedes-Benz im Dieselverfahren – Kläger erhält Schadensersatz wegen unzulässiger Abschalteinrichtung</a> erschien zuerst auf <a href="https://ru.law/en">R&amp;U</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Thuringian Higher Regional Court in Jena (case no. 10 U 49/24) ruled on <strong>November 4, 2025</strong> A verdict favorable to consumers has been reached in the diesel emissions scandal: The <strong>Mercedes-Benz Group AG</strong> was ordered to pay the plaintiff <strong>€5,133.02 in damages</strong> to pay.</p>



<p>The case concerns a <strong>Mercedes GLC 220 d 4Matic</strong> with the <strong>OM 651 diesel engine</strong>. The vehicle was equipped with a <strong>SCR system</strong> equipped for exhaust gas purification using AdBlue. However, in the court&#039;s opinion, the specific design of the SCR control – in particular the switching logic between different dosing modes – constituted a <strong>impermissible shutdown device</strong> 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.</p>



<p>The plaintiff, represented by the <strong>Rogert &amp; Ulbrich Law Firm</strong>, 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 <strong>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)</strong> liable.</p>



<p>The judges considered it proven that Mercedes had failed to provide the buyer with a <strong>incorrect certificate of conformity</strong> 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&#039;s attempt to plead a so-called mistake of law was also unsuccessful.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-fazit">Conclusion</h2>



<p>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. <strong>Claims for damages against Mercedes-Benz</strong> assert your claim.</p><p>Der Beitrag <a href="https://ru.law/en/olg-jena-verurteilt-mercedes-benz-im-dieselverfahren-klaeger-erhaelt-schadensersatz-wegen-unzulaessiger-abschalteinrichtung/">OLG Jena verurteilt Mercedes-Benz im Dieselverfahren – Kläger erhält Schadensersatz wegen unzulässiger Abschalteinrichtung</a> erschien zuerst auf <a href="https://ru.law/en">R&amp;U</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>