The plaintiff bought the used Audi A4 Avant 2.0 l TDI with 17,500 km for 28,150 euros in January 2016 and therefore just under 4 months after the emissions scandal became known.
In a similar case, the BGH rejected the claim because, in the opinion of the Senate, after the publication of the ad hoc announcement by Volkswagen AG on September 22, 2015, Volkswagen AG’s behavior should have changed in such a way that from this point in time no more an immorality could be assumed.
The courts have so far followed this unanimously and dismissed the complaints on the basis of this justification.
The verdict of the Ingolstadt Regional Court correctly differentiates between the individual brands within the Volkswagen Group and therefore comes to a different conclusion.
Because, contrary to the opinion of Audi AG, their behavior does not mean that the allegation of immorality raised against it is no longer justified. The court does not misunderstand, it says in the ruling, that the behavior of Audi AG (after the vehicle has been placed on the market) up to the conclusion of the sales contract at issue should also be taken into account in the overall assessment.
The court was of the opinion that the measures taken by the parent company, i.e. Volkswagen AG, with reference to the fact that numerous other vehicles of the entire group were affected, were not sufficient to remove the verdict of immorality for Audi as well.
The measures taken by the parent company also did not allow the necessary conclusion that the strategic entrepreneurial decision of Audi AG, in its own cost and profit interests, to deceive the responsible authorities and ultimately the vehicle buyers through the strategy of going public, admitted irregularities and, in cooperation with the Federal Motor Transport Authority, to develop measures to remove the illegal situation in order to avert the risk of operating restrictions or prohibitions.
The development and provision of a software update carried out by the parent company could not be enough to relieve Audi in this respect. The same applies to the extensive media reporting with which the problem was made available to the general public: When assessing the efforts that Audi AG had to make to make its behavior appear not immoral in the context of the necessary overall assessment, this could be in favor of the defendant, at most, a minor consideration, without omitting the immorality in the overall assessment. The media coverage was almost exclusively initiated by the press department of Volkswagen AG and, as a result, was primarily an important topic as the “VW EMISSION SCANDAL”. The other measures such as the establishment of a link to a search engine for affected vehicles on the website, the measures of the KBA and the provision of software updates were primarily associated with Volkswagen AG and not with Audi AG. If these measures could be associated with a change in behavior at all, it would in any case not be possible to infer a change in behavior at Audi AG.
This applies all the more as Audi AG, known to the court, used inadmissible disconnection devices in numerous other vehicles produced and developed by it, in which the engines it developed and produced were located, beyond the time the vehicle at issue was brought into circulation until the conclusion of the sales contract. Against this background, the assumption of a change of mind that would eliminate the immorality does not seem convincing.
“Many thought that with the BGH ruling on late purchase cases everything was over for these injured parties. Plaintiffs’ offices are withdrawing appeals en masse. Now the sensational turn at the home court of Audi AG in Ingolstadt: the behavior of Audi AG after the machinations there became known does not bring the allegation of immorality In view of the incorrect content of this notification, I have considerable doubts that VW will succeed in stealing its responsibility with the mandatory notification to shareholders. It cannot be a “clean bill of health” for VW – and certainly not for Audi and other daughters. I am sure that many more courts will follow the convincing arguments of the Ingolstadt judges. We will continue to fight for the injured “, says managing partner Dr. Marco Rogert from the successful pioneer law firm Rogert & Ulbrich.
About Rogert & Ulbrich
The law firm Rogert & Ulbrich is a renowned commercial law firm with special expertise in consumer protection. The law firm employs around 20 lawyers. In particular, it has made a name for itself as a pioneer firm in the “diesel exhaust scandal”. The lawyers advise and represent injured vehicle buyers nationwide – including individuals, companies and municipalities. It was the first law firm nationwide to be active in the emissions scandal and was also the first to successfully initiate a deictic lawsuit against Volkswagen AG.
As part of the historically first model declaratory action brought by the Federation of German Consumer Organizations, the lawyers Dr. Marco Rogert and Tobias Ulbrich, under the umbrella of R / U / S / S Litigation Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, successfully defended the interests of the Federal Association of Consumer Organizations (vzbv) and the up to 470,000 consumers behind them against Volkswagen AG. Many thousands of judgments have been fought against automotive groups so far. The pioneers in the emissions scandal are still a leading address in the legal processing of the diesel emissions scandal.
Press contact:
Dirk Fuhrhop
Lawyer
Rogert & Ulbrich
Lawyers in partnership mbB
Ottostr. 12
50859 Cologne
Phone: (0049) (0) 2234/219 48-0
Email: [email protected]
Original content by: Rogert & Ulbrich, transmitted by news aktuell
Original message: https://www.presseportal.de/pm/119896/4764728
– .
.jpg "Because of the large demonstrations – doubts about the holding of the “Peru and Argentina” match")
