home / news & insights /
In the QB/Mercedes-Benz judgment of 21 March 2023, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) confirmed that consumers who purchased a vehicle with an ‘unlawful defeat device’ have a right to compensation from vehicle manufacturers. The judgment is the most recent in a line of rulings coming out of the ‘Dieselgate’ or ‘Emissionsgate’ scandal about devices installed in vehicles with diesel engines by vehicle manufacturers such as Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz to manipulate emissions.
Factual background of ‘Dieselgate’
Vehicle manufacturers need approval from motor transport authorities in order to sell vehicles on the European market. In order to secure approval, manufacturers need to prove that their vehicles comply with European emissions reduction regulations. The vehicles at issue were equipped with software intended to distort the results of emissions tests, known as defeat devices. The software would, for example, switch between two modes. One mode would be used for regulatory approval tests (producing lower emissions in order to obtain approval) and the second would be used for real-world operation of the vehicle. After it surfaced that the vehicles contained these devices, the manufacturers carried out an update to ‘repair’ the issue. Volkswagen updated the software in such a way that the emissions reduction software would be deactivated in more ‘difficult’ driving conditions: when the outside temperature was below 15 degrees Celsius and above 33 degrees, and when the driving altitude was above 1,000 meters. The vehicles with the updated software were approved by the German Motor Transport Authority (Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt, “KBA”).
Earlier ECJ judgments
As context, we briefly summarize the most relevant earlier Dieselgate judgments:
The ruling in QB/Mercedes-Benz
The question put before the ECJ by a German court in QB/Mercedes-Benz was whether the European regulations on emissions reductions had, in addition to the protection of public interests, the objective to protect the specific interests of individual purchasers of vehicles vis-à-vis the vehicle manufacturers. This question of ‘relativity’ is relevant in various EU countries (including Germany and the Netherlands) as a condition for tortious liability.
The ECJ ruled that the European regulations on emission reductions and defeat devices had the object to also protect the specific interests of individual purchasers of vehicles. This because the regulations provide a direct link between the car manufacturers and the individual purchaser intended to guarantee to the consumer that the vehicle complies with the relevant EU legislation.4 The judgment also confirmed that purchasers of vehicles with an unlawful defeat device have a right to compensation from the manufacturer under European law. The member states can define the compensatory rules, but such rules need to comply with the principle of effectiveness of European law.
Relevance for consumer claims
The further clarity provided by the ECJ is a welcome development for the consumers who purchased diesel vehicles with an illegal defeat device, and who are pursuing their claims in one of the many on-going collective and individual cases across Europe.
In the Netherlands, the District Court of Amsterdam already ruled in 2021 in the Car Claim collective action case that purchasers of new Volkswagen, Audi, Seat and Skoda vehicles with an illegal defeat device had the right of a price reduction of EUR 3,000, and the purchasers of second-hand vehicles a reduction of EUR 1,500.5 However, the court did not actually award damages to the affected consumers, as the Dutch Collective Damages Act (WAMCA) was not applicable in temporal scope. Currently, various collective damages actions are pending before the Dutch courts to obtain compensations for the victims of Dieselgate.6
As an aside, we observe that in the 2021 judgment, the Amsterdam court did not award compensation for the harm suffered after the software update was carried out by the vehicle manufacturers. The court found that the software update could not be unlawful, because it was approved by the KBA, even though it could very well be that the KBA’s assessment was incorrect. This finding appears to be incorrect in the light of the ECJ’s judgment in GSMB/Auto Krainer, in which the ECJ ruled that the software update was unlawful, and found the KBA’s approval irrelevant.
Partner, antitrust litigation expertContact
1 September 2023 - News
Lindenbaum expands its practice with the arrival of Guido Vergouwen as a partner. Vergouwen will split his time between the Amsterdam office and a new office in Eindhoven, which he will open for the firm.Read more
5 May 2023 - Insights
The ECJ has provided its decision in the UI/Österreichische Post AG case (“UI-case”). The decision is important, because it further clarifies under which conditions damages can be claimed in response to GDPR-infringements. In this contribution, we outline the key findings by the ECJ in the UI-case.Read more
2 May 2023 - Insights
On 28 April 2023 Damiën Berkhout was a panelist at the Global Class Actions and Mass Torts Conference. Damiën discussed under what conditions the assignment model can be used to litigate mass tort claims, and commented that the model will continue to exist even now that opt-out class action opportunities exist in The Netherlands.Read more