The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on Tuesday 21 March that the purchaser of a motor vehicle fitted with an unlawful defeat device has an individual right to compensation from the car manufacturer where the immobiliser has caused him damage (Case C-100/21).
In Germany, a private individual is seeking compensation from the Mercedes-Benz Group for the damage allegedly caused to him by his diesel-powered vehicle equipped with software that reduces the rate of exhaust gas recirculation (NOx) when outside temperatures are low. Such a device would be prohibited by the Regulation (715/2007) on type approval of motor vehicles with regard to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles.
Referred to by the General Court of Ravensburg, the Court first asked the German judge to establish that the software at issue constituted a defeat device, the use of which could be justified by an exception provided for in Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (see cases C-128/20 and C-693/18 - EUROPE 12625/29).
The European judge highlighted that, in accordance with the Directive (2007/46) governing the type-approval of motor vehicles, these vehicles must be subject to EC type-approval, which is granted only if the vehicle type complies with the provisions of Regulation (715/2007), in particular those relating to emissions. In addition, manufacturers are obliged to provide the buyer with a certificate of conformity certifying that the vehicle purchased complies with all regulatory acts at the time of its production.
Based on the opinion of the Advocate General (see EUROPE 12965/32), the Court concluded that the Directive establishes a direct link between the car manufacturer and a purchaser to ensure that the vehicle complies with EU law. According to the Commission, European legislation therefore protects the special interests of the individual purchaser of a motor vehicle vis-à-vis the manufacturer when the vehicle is equipped with an unlawful defeat device.
Member States should provide that the purchaser of such a vehicle has a right to compensation and should lay down the details. Above all, obtaining adequate reparation cannot be made excessively difficult or result in unjust enrichment of the beneficiaries, the Court emphasised.
See the Court’s judgment: https://aeur.eu/f/5xm (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)