DThe sight must be in Exhaust scandal A possible exemplary declaration action by the Stuttgart Higher District Court. The Federal Association of Consumer Organizations (vzbv) filed such a lawsuit in court on Wednesday morning, benefiting tens of thousands of Mercedes-Benz drivers in Germany. Consumer activists accused automakers of “deliberately manipulating” exhaust emission limits.
“Through the new lawsuit, we hope to open a new chapter in the history of diesel scandals,” said Klaus Mueller, the head of vzbv, in a video conference in front of reporters.According to Müller, the association assumes that Daimler Consumers can claim damages. “Anyone affected can determine whether Daimler AG deliberately installed impermissible power cuts in several models.” Through this project, consumer advocates hope to prove that the group has installed such cuts Install and take unethical and deliberate behavior.
2018 recall
Your lawsuit concerns Mercedes GLC and GLK models with engine model OM651. For this reason, Federal Motor Transport Administration A recall was ordered due to an impermissible malfunctioning device. These devices can ensure that the vehicle meets the allowable exhaust emission limits during type certification, but then will significantly exceed these values ​​in road traffic. In a far-reaching decision in December 2020, the European Court of Justice declared that the use of such failed devices in old diesel engines is generally unacceptable and leaves little room for manoeuvre in the industry.
According to vzbv, these are the vehicles that KBA ordered to recall in 2018. This means that possible claims against the group may expire at the end of this year; however, the model declaration action suppressed this impact on consumers who joined the action. In the words of Christian Grotz of Dr. Law Firm. Stoll & Sauer, who represented vzbv in the lawsuit, affected approximately 50,000 Mercedes GLC and GLK models in Germany. In the European Union, there are said to be more than 136,000 cars.
Differential damage right
Grotz set the average purchase price of SUV models at 40,000 euros. This time, unlike the diesel lawsuit against Volkswagen and the EA 189 engine, the purpose of this lawsuit is not to revoke the purchase contract. It should pave the way for consumers to claim different damages against Daimler. According to von Grotz, in this case, the German court is hearing a four-digit lawsuit against Daimler.
After review by the Stuttgart Regional High Court, the Federal Office of Justice will announce the proposed legal action as soon as possible. The consumer can then register at the litigation registry. If at least 10 consumers have joined their claim against Daimler, then a model statement lawsuit is acceptable.
For Daimler, the progress of consumer rights protectors is not entirely unexpected-in principle, people have got some positive things from it: “Through exemplary declaration actions, important legal issues can be clarified more effectively.” According to the initial statement the Stuttgart-based company-followed by reservations: “In this case, it remains to be seen to what extent this is possible.” Daimler has repeatedly stated that they will Happy with the Supreme Court’s decision, this may serve as a guardrail for many procedures.
However, it has happened many times that Daimler customers withdrew their complaints before the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled against them. A few days ago, BGH negotiated for the first time on the issue of heat-insulating windows, and made it clear that there was no unethical behavior in this case and demanded compensation for losses. However, in this case, the verdict will not be issued until July 13.
When talking about the current practice, a Daimler spokesperson pointed out: “The demonstrative statement has not yet been delivered to us.” This is why we cannot comment in detail. However, he emphasized that people will defend themselves against all claims in the context of the exemplary declaration of litigation because people believe that these claims are unfounded. Statistics from individual plaintiffs’ previous litigation indicate that the German judiciary often followed these arguments. Accordingly, to date, 95% of the cases heard by the District Court and the High District Court have made judgments in favor of car manufacturers.
