QB v Mercedes-Benz Group AG, anciennement Daimler AG.

JurisdictionEuropean Union
ECLIECLI:EU:C:2023:229
Date21 March 2023
Docket NumberC-100/21
Celex Number62021CJ0100
CourtCourt of Justice (European Union)

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

21 March 2023 (*)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Approval of motor vehicles – Directive 2007/46/EC – Article 18(1) – Article 26(1) – Article 46 – Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 – Article 5(2) – Motor vehicles – Diesel engine – Pollutant emissions – Exhaust gas recirculation valve (EGR valve) – Reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions limited by a ‘temperature window’ – Defeat device – Protection of the interests of an individual purchaser of a vehicle equipped with an unlawful defeat device – Right to compensation from the vehicle manufacturer on the basis of tortious liability – Method of calculating compensation – Principle of effectiveness – Article 267 TFEU – Admissibility – Reference to the Court from a single judge)

In Case C‑100/21,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Regional Court, Ravensburg, Germany), made by decision of 12 February 2021, received at the Court on 17 February 2021, in the proceedings

QB

v

Mercedes-Benz Group AG, formerly Daimler AG

THE COURT (Grand Chamber),

composed of K. Lenaerts, President, L. Bay Larsen, Vice-President, A. Arabadjiev, A. Prechal, K. Jürimäe and P.G. Xuereb (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, M. Ilešič, N. Piçarra, I. Jarukaitis, A. Kumin, N. Jääskinen, N. Wahl, I. Ziemele, Z. Csehi and O. Spineanu-Matei, Judges,

Advocate General: A. Rantos,

Registrar: M. Krausenböck, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 8 March 2022,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– QB, by P. Franz, N. Gellert, R. Ghaffari, R. Klinger, K. Meiser and A. Pacura, Rechtsanwälte,

– Mercedes-Benz Group AG, by M. Ruttloff, U. Soltész, E. Wagner and N. Wimmer, Rechtsanwälte,

– the German Government, by J. Möller and D. Klebs, acting as Agents,

– the European Commission, by M. Huttunen, M. Noll-Ehlers and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 2 June 2022,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 18(1), Article 26(1) and Article 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 385/2009 of 7 May 2009 (OJ 2009 L 118, p. 13) (‘the Framework Directive’), read in conjunction with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1), and of the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU.

2 The request has been made in proceedings between QB and Mercedes-Benz Group AG, formerly Daimler AG, a car manufacturer, concerning the right to compensation invoked by QB and the calculation of the amount of damages he may be owed on account of his purchase of a diesel vehicle equipped with software which reduces the recirculation of pollutant gases of that vehicle depending on the outside temperature and which does not comply with the requirements of EU law.

Legal context

European Union law

The Framework Directive

3 The Framework Directive was repealed by Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, amending Regulations No 715/2007 and (EC) No 595/2009 and repealing Directive 2007/46 (OJ 2018 L 151, p. 1), with effect from 1 September 2020. However, in view of the date of the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings, the Framework Directive remains applicable to that dispute.

4 According to recital 3 of that framework directive:

‘The technical requirements applicable to systems, components, separate technical units and vehicles should be harmonised and specified in regulatory acts. Those regulatory acts should primarily seek to ensure a high level of road safety, health protection, environmental protection, energy efficiency and protection against unauthorised use.’

5 Article 1 of the Framework Directive stated:

‘This Directive establishes a harmonised framework containing the administrative provisions and general technical requirements for approval of all new vehicles within its scope and of the systems, components and separate technical units intended for those vehicles, with a view to facilitating their registration, sale and entry into service within the Community.

Specific technical requirements concerning the construction and functioning of vehicles shall be laid down in application of this Directive in regulatory acts, the exhaustive list of which is set out in Annex IV.’

6 Article 3(5) and (36) of the Framework Directive provided:

‘For the purposes of this Directive and of the regulatory acts listed in Annex IV, save as otherwise provided therein:

5. “EC type-approval” means the procedure whereby a Member State certifies that a type of vehicle, system, component or separate technical unit satisfies the relevant administrative provisions and technical requirements of this Directive and of the regulatory acts listed in Annex IV or XI;

36. “certificate of conformity” means the document set out in Annex IX, issued by the manufacturer and certifying that a vehicle belonging to the series of the type approved in accordance with this Directive complied with all regulatory acts at the time of its production’.

7 Article 4 of that framework directive was worded as follows:

‘1. Member States shall ensure that manufacturers applying for approval comply with their obligations under this Directive.

2. Member States shall approve only such vehicles, systems, components or separate technical units as satisfy the requirements of this Directive.

3. Member States shall register or permit the sale or entry into service only of such vehicles, components and separate technical units as satisfy the requirements of this Directive.

…’

8 Article 8(6) of the Framework Directive provided:

‘The approval authority shall inform without delay the approval authorities of the other Member States of its refusal or withdrawal of any vehicle approval, together with the reasons for its decision.’

9 Article 13(1) of that framework directive stated:

‘The manufacturer shall inform without delay the Member State that granted the EC type-approval of any change in the particulars recorded in the information package. That Member State shall decide, in accordance with the rules laid down in this Chapter, which procedure is to be followed. Where necessary, the Member State may decide, in consultation with the manufacturer, that a new EC type-approval is to be granted.’

10 Article 18(1) of that framework directive provided:

‘The manufacturer, in his capacity as the holder of an EC type-approval of a vehicle, shall deliver a certificate of conformity to accompany each vehicle, whether complete, incomplete or completed, that is manufactured in conformity with the approved vehicle type.

…’

11 Article 26(1) of the Framework Directive read as follows:

‘Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 29 and 30, Member States shall register, and permit the sale or entry into service of, vehicles only if they are accompanied by a valid certificate of conformity issued in accordance with Article 18.

…’

12 Article 30(1) of the Framework Directive provided:

‘If a Member State which has granted an EC type-approval finds that new vehicles, systems, components or separate technical units accompanied by a certificate of conformity or bearing an approval mark do not conform to the type it has approved, it shall take the necessary measures, including, where necessary, the withdrawal of type-approval, to ensure that production vehicles, systems, components or separate technical units, as the case may be, are brought into conformity with the approved type. The approval authority of that Member State shall advise the approval authorities of the other Member States of the measures taken.’

13 Article 46 of that framework directive stated:

‘Member States shall determine the penalties applicable for infringement of the provisions of this Directive, and in particular of the prohibitions contained in or resulting from Article 31, and of the regulatory acts listed in Part I of Annex IV and shall take all necessary measures for their implementation. The penalties determined shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall notify these provisions to the [European] Commission no later than 29 April 2009 and shall notify any subsequent modifications thereof as soon as possible.’

14 Annex IX to the Framework Directive described the content of the EC certificate of conformity. Point 0 of that annex stated:

‘The certificate of conformity is a statement delivered by the vehicle manufacturer to the buyer in order to assure him that the vehicle acquired complies with the legislation in force in the European Union at the time it was produced.

The certificate of conformity also serves the purpose to enable the competent authorities of the Member States to register vehicles without having to require the applicant to supply additional technical documentation.

…’

Regulation No 715/2007

15 Recitals 1, 5, 6 and 17 of Regulation No 715/2007 state:

‘(1) … The technical requirements for the type approval of motor vehicles with regard to emissions should … be harmonised to avoid requirements that differ from one Member State to another, and to ensure a high level...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Arkadiusz Szcześniak v Bank M. SA.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • June 15, 2023
    ...welche Auswirkungen das Urteil vom 21. März 2023, Mercedes-Benz Group (Haftung der Hersteller von Fahrzeugen mit Abschalteinrichtungen) (C‑100/21, EU:C:2023:229), auf das Ausgangsverfahren 35 Hierzu ist zum einen festzustellen, dass die Satzung des Gerichtshofs der Europäischen Union und di......
  • Hellfire Massy Residents Association v An Bord Pleanála and Others.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • July 6, 2023
    ...des Unionsrechts betreffen (Urteil vom 21. März 2023, Mercedes-Benz Group [Haftung der Hersteller von Fahrzeugen mit Abschalteinrichtungen], C‑100/21, EU:C:2023:229, Rn. 52 und die dort angeführte 25 Folglich gilt für Fragen, die das Unionsrecht betreffen, eine Vermutung der Entscheidungser......
  • Fractal Insolvenţă SPRL, en tant que liquidateur de Groenland Poultry SRL v Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură - Centrul Judeţean Dâmboviţa.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • September 7, 2023
    ...Fragen erforderlich sind (Urteil vom 21. März 2023, Mercedes-Benz Group [Haftung der Hersteller von Fahrzeugen mit Abschalteinrichtungen], C‑100/21, EU:C:2023:229, Rn. 52 und 53 sowie die dort angeführte 33 Im vorliegenden Fall hat das vorlegende Gericht in seinem Vorabentscheidungsersuchen......
4 cases
  • Fractal Insolvenţă SPRL, en tant que liquidateur de Groenland Poultry SRL v Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură - Centrul Judeţean Dâmboviţa.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • September 7, 2023
    ...Fragen erforderlich sind (Urteil vom 21. März 2023, Mercedes-Benz Group [Haftung der Hersteller von Fahrzeugen mit Abschalteinrichtungen], C‑100/21, EU:C:2023:229, Rn. 52 und 53 sowie die dort angeführte 33 Im vorliegenden Fall hat das vorlegende Gericht in seinem Vorabentscheidungsersuchen......
  • Hellfire Massy Residents Association v An Bord Pleanála and Others.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • July 6, 2023
    ...des Unionsrechts betreffen (Urteil vom 21. März 2023, Mercedes-Benz Group [Haftung der Hersteller von Fahrzeugen mit Abschalteinrichtungen], C‑100/21, EU:C:2023:229, Rn. 52 und die dort angeführte 25 Folglich gilt für Fragen, die das Unionsrecht betreffen, eine Vermutung der Entscheidungser......
  • VK and Others v BMW Bank GmbH and Others.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • December 21, 2023
    ...a statuire [sentenza del 21 marzo 2023, Mercedes-Benz Group (Responsabilità dei produttori di veicoli muniti di impianti di manipolazione), C‑100/21, EU:C:2023:229, punto 52 e giurisprudenza 110 Ne consegue che le questioni vertenti sul diritto dell’Unione godono di una presunzione di rilev......
  • Arkadiusz Szcześniak v Bank M. SA.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • June 15, 2023
    ...welche Auswirkungen das Urteil vom 21. März 2023, Mercedes-Benz Group (Haftung der Hersteller von Fahrzeugen mit Abschalteinrichtungen) (C‑100/21, EU:C:2023:229), auf das Ausgangsverfahren 35 Hierzu ist zum einen festzustellen, dass die Satzung des Gerichtshofs der Europäischen Union und di......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT