Between roughly 2009 and 2019, Mercedes installed illegal defeat device software in millions of diesel cars worldwide. Much of the Mercedes diesel fleet approved under the Euro 5 or Euro 6 standard were subject to a recall. The purpose of this tampering software was to detect laboratory emission tests and/or reduce the use of AdBlue. When the standardised emissions test conditions were present, the tampered software enabled the vehicles to maximise the efficiency of emission reduction technology, including AdBlue dosing and recirculation valves for engine gases, in order to falsely comply with the NOx emission limits set by the Euro 5 and Euro 6 emission standards.

When these cars hit the road, they far exceeded the legal limits for NOx emissions. This was done to reduce maintenance costs, to stretch AdBlue refills to standard service intervals and to make the vehicles more competitive in the market. Besides the impact this had on your wallet, it may have (had) adverse effects on your health and the environment.

Mercedes misled consumers and should be held accountable for its actions.

Mercedes Response

In the summer of 2017, Mercedes voluntarily subjected 3 million European diesel vehicles to a recall, which included almost all of Mercedes’ Euro 5 and Euro 6 vehicles. In summer 2018, the German Federal Authority for Motor Transport (“KBA”) – the equivalent of the Dutch RDW – imposed the first two mandatory recalls covering more than 684,000 vehicles, including the Mercedes Vito, C-Class, E-Class and Sprinter models.

In 2019, a number of further (mandatory) recalls followed, covering more than 300,000 vehicles, including the Sprinter and the SUV model GLK. Several recalls also followed in 2020, 2022 and 2023 in Europe, including the Netherlands.

In autumn 2019, the German public prosecutor in Stuttgart imposed an €870 million fine on Mercedes, the carmaker acknowledged that it had been negligent in its inspection processes, resulting in violations of the emissions standard. Mercedes did not appeal this fine.

Despite this, Mercedes refuses to take responsibility and thereby come clean. Mercedes is now facing several class actions in both the United States and the United Kingdom.

What we are doing

Individual car owners do not have the resources to hold large international companies like Mercedes accountable. As a result, large companies often go scot-free and their customers are left with the damage. Indeed, Mercedes’ unlawful actions have led to lower sales values on the second-hand market, higher maintenance costs and user inconvenience because the AdBlue tank has to be refilled every 13,000-14,000 km, instead of 30,000 km (during servicing).

With collective action legislation in the Netherlands, Emissions Justice can represent all victims in the Netherlands to hold Mercedes and related parties liable.

Emissions Justice has now brought proceedings against five major car companies. In doing so, Emissions Justice has gained extensive experience in tracing illegal manipulation devices and identifying affected vehicles. For instance, Emissions Justice is in close contact with a leading IT expert who previously exposed the workings of their tampering software at several brands, namely Volkswagen, Fiat and Mercedes. Emissions Justice is currently the only Dutch advocacy organisation that has this (technical) expertise in-house. This allows Emissions Justice to make a difference and therefore makes it the obvious choice to represent your interests.

INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROCEDURE

Emissions Justice started proceedings against Mercedes and the official Dutch Mercedes dealers on 30 July 2020. The proceedings are pending before the District Court of Amsterdam and registered under case number C/13/686493 / HA ZA 20-69. The defendants in these proceedings are Mercedes-Benz AG (formerly Daimler AG), Mercedes-Benz Nederland B.V. (formerly Mercedes-Benz Vans Nederland B.V. and Mercedes-Benz Cars Nederland B.V.) and 20 Dutch car dealers. A list of all car dealers involved in these proceedings can be found here.

CURRENT STATUS:

On March 5, 2025, Mercedes filed its brief through which it had to provide the information requested by the court. However, Mercedes largely refused to comply with the information order, arguing that the requested information is business-sensitive. The court asked the foundations to respond to Mercedes’ position by deed on June 4. The court will then issue a decision on Mercedes’ request.

COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

• On 31 July 2020, Emissions Justice served a writ of summons on the defendants, Mercedes (previously: Daimler A.G.), Mercedes-Benz Nederland B.V. the Dutch importer of Mercedes cars (previously: Mercedes-Benz Vans Nederland B.V., Mercedes-Benz Cars Nederland B.V.) and a number of official Dutch Mercedes dealers.
• On 21 August 2020, Stichting Car Claim, another foundation that represents the interests of the victims of the diesel emissions scandal, requested the Amsterdam district court to extend the three months period during which other organizations may start their own action regarding the same case in order to candidate themselves for the position of exclusive representative. By decision of 30 September 2020, the court extended this term with two months.
• On 30 September 2020, the defendants appeared in the proceedings before the Amsterdam district court.
• On 30 December 2020 both Car Claim and Stichting Emission Claim, another foundation, also served writs of summons against Mercedes, and in the case of Car Claim, the car dealers.
• On 21 April 2021, the court adopted the procedural order. The procedural order can be found here. The first phase of the proceedings will deal with jurisdiction of the Amsterdam court and applicability of the (new) collective action law, the WAMCA.
• On 11 August 2021, the defendants filed their statements of defense regarding jurisdiction of the Amsterdam court and applicability of the WAMCA.
• On 25 March 2022, a hearing took place. The hearing focused on jurisdiction of the Amsterdam district court and applicability of the WAMCA.
• On 22 June 2022, the District Court of Amsterdam ruled on its jurisdiction and applicability of the WAMCA. The judgment can be found here. In summary, the court ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear claims of car owners who bought their cars in the Netherlands but has no jurisdiction for claim by car owners who bought their car from a non-Dutch dealer. The court also ruled that the WAMCA, the new class action law, does not apply. Emissions Justice disagrees with this decision of the court but did not appeal these decisions. This means that – as things stand – Emissions Justice cannot claim damages in these proceedings and that damages claims will need to be litigated in follow-up proceedings. Regarding the WAMCA decision, there are currently appeal proceedings pending in the collective actions against Volkswagen et al. and Fiat et al., where a similar decision on WAMCA has been made. If the appellate court overturns the decisions on WAMCA in those proceedings, the Amsterdam district court may apply the WAMCA in these proceedings after all.  
• Another foundation, Stichting Emission Claim, was declared inadmissible by the court. Emission Claim appealed this decision, following which the defendants requested a stay of the proceedings between Emissions Justice and the defendants.  On 19 October 2022, the court dismissed this request. The decision can be found here.
• On 9 November 2022, Mercedes and the car dealers each filed a brief giving their views on admissibility of Emissions Justice and the applicable law.
• A hearing on Emissions Justice’s admissibility and applicable law was held on 24 May 2023.
• The court issued an interim judgment on 7 June 2023 asking the foundations to produce evidence of their constituency, accompanied by an auditor’s statement and ordered them to respond to a number of questions. The court also ordered the foundations to submit their LFA’s.
• The defendants responded to these documents on 30 August 2023.
• By decision of  24 January 2024, the court ruled that Emissions Justice is admissible in its claims and ordered Car Claim to amend its LFA. The court also ruled that Mercedes would have to respond in due course on a number of questions posed by the court. The decision can be found here.
• By judgment of 17 April 2024 (to be obtained via this link), the court also declared foundation Car Claim Foundation admissible in its claims. The court ordered Mercedes and the dealers to submit their statement of defense on the merits of the case on 10 July 2024. The court also ordered Mercedes, in its statement of defense, to answer a number of detailed questions about the exact nature of the manipulation devices that Mercedes deployed in its cars. The court’s order requires Mercedes to inform the court and parties, for all its vehicles, what manipulation devices it built into its cars, how these devices modify the operation of the emission control system and on what basis Mercedes believes those manipulation devices are justified.
• By letter of 29 April 2024, Mercedes objected to the court’s order in judgment of 17 April 2024 and requested a case management hearing. The dealers requested an extension for filing their statement of defense. Emissions Justice and foundation Car Claim jointly responded by letter of 10 May 2024. On 12 June 2024, the court handed down an interim judgment, available via this link. In this decision, the court rejected Mercedes’ objections and clarified the instruction to Mercedes and ordered Mercedes to answer two questions on 26 June 2024. Those questions relate to how to group the affected vehicles so that Mercedes can answer the court’s questions most efficiently. The court also ordered a case management hearing, which will take place on 13 July 2024. During this hearing, Emissions Justice and Car Claim will respond to Mercedes’ answers to these questions and the further course of the proceedings will be discussed.
• On 12 July, a case management hearing took place in the Mercedes case. During this hearing, the parties discussed how Mercedes should structure the information that the court ordered Mercedes to submit. Also, the parties discussed the further course of the proceedings. A decision on these issues is expected shortly.
• By interim decision of July 31, 2024 the court instructed the parties to provide their views on, amongst others, the following topics: the question whether the court is authorized to rule on the presence and illegality of defeat devices, the scope of the information order and whether the court was permitted to ask Mercedes to  provide information on defeat devices that have not yet been discovered by the plaintiffs. The purpose of these questions was to assist the court in reaching a final decision on the information order.
• By decision of November 13, 2024, the court ruled that it has jurisdiction to rule on the presence of illegal defeat devices and that, in making this decision, it is not bound by the judgment of the type approval organization. For each vehicle and each engine type, Mercedes must inform the court which defeat devices it used and why it deems this justified. The order both defeat devices that have been discussed during the proceedings as well as defeat devices that have not yet been discovered by the plaintiffs. Mercedes will have to provide this information on 5 February 2025.
• On Feb. 5, 2025, Mercedes had to serve a brief in which it would have to comply with the court’s information order. Mercedes was ordered to disclose for each car whether it contains illegal manipulation devices and, if so, which ones. Mercedes asked the Foundations for a four-week extension. The Foundations agreed.
• On February 26, 2025, Mercedes filed a recusal request, asking the court to replace one of the three judges, Mr. Jongeneel. This request was turned down on April 10, 2025. The decision can be found here.
• On March 5, 2025, Mercedes filed its brief through which it had to provide the information requested by the court. However, Mercedes largely refused to comply with the information order, arguing that the requested information is business-sensitive. The court asked the foundations to respond to Mercedes’ position by deed on June 4. The decision can be found here. The court will then issue a decision on Mercedes’ request.