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:

A hearing is scheduled for 24 May 2023, this will address Emissions Justice’s admissibility and applicable law.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DAIMLER AG

• 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. and 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, also 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 of parties 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. Briefly, the court ruled that it has no jurisdiction to hear claims by car owners who bought their car from a non-Dutch dealer. However, for the claims of other (former) car owners against Mercedes and the car dealers, the court does have jurisdiction. The court also ruled that the WAMCA, the new class action law, does not apply. Emissions Justice disagrees with this decision of the court. However, Emissions Justice did not appeal the WAMCA decision or the jurisdiction decision. This means that – as things stand – it is not possible for Emissions Justice to claim damages in these proceedings. Also, Emissions Justice cannot currently pursue claims on behalf of (former) car owners who bought their diesel car from a non-Dutch dealer. As for the WAMCA decision, there are currently two appeal proceedings pending in class actions against other car manufacturers, where a similar decision on WAMCA has been made. Those proceedings may also be or become influential in trying to overturn the current WAMCA decision (i.e. not to apply WAMCA) in these proceedings as well. Should that succeed, Emissions Justice may still be able to claim damages (again) in the proceedings against Mercedes. Even if the old collective action law continues to apply, Emissions Justice will continue its efforts to settle this case for its members collectively, whether or not by trying to reach a settlement and having it declared generally binding.

  Another foundation, Emission Claim Foundation, was declared inadmissible by the court. The court directed Mercedes and the car dealers to explain their position on the admissibility of Emissions Justice and the applicable law in writing.

• On 19 October 2022, the court dismissed Mercedes’ and the dealers’ stay application. They had sought a stay pending the appeal filed by Emissions Claim Foundation, which foundation had been declared inadmissible by the court. The decision is here.

• On 9 November 2022, Mercedes and the car dealers each filed a brief giving their views on the admissibility of Emissions Justice and the applicable law. Oral argument on these issues is scheduled for 24 May 2023.