Last year, Volkswagen had to compensate thousands of diesel drivers following a landmark ruling by the Federal Court of Justice.

On Thursday, the Daimler Group was spared this exit in Karlsruhe.

The seventh civil senate in Karlsruhe dismissed four appeals against the Stuttgart group in claims for damages because of the use of the so-called thermal window in diesel engines.

In contrast to the Volkswagen emissions scandal, the manufacturer of the Mercedes-Benz vehicles did not show any fraudulent intent, the federal judges made clear.

As a result, the numerous civil lawsuits against Daimler throughout Germany are likely to have lost one of the central arguments (Az. VII ZR 190/20 et al.)

Marcus Jung

Editor in business.

  • Follow I follow

The so-called thermal windows are temperature-dependent exhaust gas cleaning in diesel vehicles of the Mercedes-Benz brand. Numerous customers see it as an illegal defeat device and, like the appellants, have gone to court. They argued that the models' nitrogen oxide limit values ​​were only met on the test bench, but not in everyday use on the road. Daimler, in turn, denies that.

In an interview with the FAZ in October 2020, Renata Jungo Brüngger, responsible for integrity and law on the Daimler Board of Management, was convinced that the Group's diesel exhaust systems are legally and technically justifiable and meet European requirements.

Shortly before, Daimler had reached a settlement for two billion dollars in the United States to settle disputes with authorities and class plaintiffs.

But for lawyers and plaintiffs in Germany, this in turn provided an opportunity to continue to go to court.

Thermal windows alone do not justify a claim for damages

The revisions concerned claims for damages that had previously been dismissed by the Koblenz Higher Regional Court. In the opinion of the BGH, these decisions were made without legal errors. With this, Karlsruhe remains true to its previous jurisprudence in the thermal window lawsuits. At the end of January, the sixth civil senate announced in a resolution that the use of the thermal window was not comparable to the procedure at VW, where it had been decided in its own cost and profit interests to use software to deceive authorities about compliance with the limit values. And in July the Senate made it clear in another revision that the use of the thermal window alone does not justify a claim for damages.

From Daimler's point of view, the announced model declaratory action by the Federal Association of Consumer Organizations remains a major hurdle. The consumer advocates accuse the automobile manufacturer of "deliberately manipulating" the limit values ​​for exhaust gases. With their project, they could address numerous Mercedes drivers who want to continue suing despite today's BGH rulings.