Mercedes-Benz must pay customers who suffer diesel emissions 'defeat device' damages, European court rules - report

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that Mercedes-Benz must compensate owners of diesel-powered vehicles who suffer damages due to emissions defeat devices.

Last year, the owner of a used diesel-powered C-Class whose car's gas recirculation system was resulting in increased emissions brought the case to a German court, and the case has since been taken up by a lawyer representing tens of thousands of clients in the case.

The case echoes the Volkswagen ‘Dieselgate' case, in which the brand was found to have intentionally programmed cars to use their emission reduction function during regulatory testing, and not in real-world driving.

Previously, German courts had ruled that owners weren't entitled to be paid damages unless the car brand's emission undertaking was intentional, rather than simply negligent.

That has since been overturned after an advisor to the ECJ said owners are entitled to payment regardless of the brand's intention.

Part of the ruling explains that "it is for the German court to carry out the factual assessments necessary to establish whether the programming software in question constitutes a defeat device", a court statement said.

If it is found to be as such, the court has ruled that Mercedes is required to pay compensation to the owner in cases where the owner has suffered damages, with each EU member state required to make that right as easy as possible for the owner to exercise.

According to Reuters, a Mercedes spokesperson said "that it remained to be seen how national courts would apply the European court's decision to federal law".

Previously, the same court ruled in relation to the infamous Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal that "if a device was designed to avoid serious engine damage that could cause an accident, this may not be illegal", but even then could not operate under normal driving conditions for most of the year.

An Australian class action was also opened in November, months after the case kicked off in Europe, with the EU court's findings having prompted the filing to the Victorian supreme court.