display

Karlsruhe (dpa) - The fact that VW is obliged to pay damages to tens of thousands of diesel owners has been clear since the first judgment of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) on the emissions scandal - but what about the Audi subsidiary?

The highest civil judge in Karlsruhe will decide on this on Monday (2 p.m.) in a sample case.

The scandalous engine EA189 was developed at Volkswagen, but is also found in some Audi models.

The question is whether Audi can therefore also be accused of immoral damage.

At VW, the BGH judges assume that millions of car buyers should be deceived with the secret use of a manipulated exhaust technology.

As a result, excessively high pollutant emissions were concealed in tests.

Therefore, claimants who meet the requirements can in principle return their car to VW.

However, you do not get the full purchase price back, but have to count the kilometers you have driven.

Against this background, VW has agreed on a settlement group-wide in around 34,000 proceedings since the fundamental ruling in May 2020.

These plaintiffs are allowed to keep their car.

display

At Audi, however, the hurdles are likely to be higher, as much had already emerged in the negotiations on February 22nd.

The judges had discussed the case in advance - and do not necessarily assume that the exhaust gas fraud must have been known internally at Audi.

As Senate Chairman Stephan Seiters suggested, this would mean for the plaintiffs that they would have to make much more specific allegations.

The Naumburg Higher Regional Court had recently awarded the plaintiff in the model case around EUR 20,000 in damages plus interest.

After all, Audi put the impermissible defeat device on the market in its vehicles.

It can be ruled out that this judgment will stand.

Seiters had spoken of legal errors.

The case should therefore be referred back.

According to the company, a low four-digit number of lawsuits are pending against Audi.

In some of these proceedings, Audi assumes that the plaintiffs have no claims for damages or that they went to court too late.

(Az. VI ZR 505/19)

display

© dpa-infocom, dpa: 210308-99-730579 / 2

Announcement by the BGH

Principle judgment of May 25th

display

BGH notification on this

BGH judgment of July 30th on interest and frequent travelers

BGH judgment of July 30th on VW's damages

BGH judgment of July 30th on tort interest

BGH judgment of July 30th on the purchase from autumn 2015

BGH judgment of December 8th on corporate brands

BGH judgment of December 17th on the statute of limitations