Case Analysis
Case No. C-693/18 involves CLCV and Others (Defeat device on diesel engines), whereby the car manufacturing company released into the market vehicles fitted with software that can distort outcomes of gaseous emissions test approval. The defendants, in this case, were the car manufacturing company, while the claimants were the car consumers in Europe. The case was in contravention of the “Regulation (EC) No 715/2007; Article 3(10); Article 5(2); Defeat device; Motor vehicles; Diesel engines; Pollutant emissions; Programme acting on the electronic engine controller; Technologies and strategies to limit the production of pollutant emissions.” The parties, in this case, are CLCV and others, A and Others, B, AGLP and Others, and C and Others (Court of Justice of the European Union, 2022). The case was received at the court on 29th October 2018, and the judgment was conducted on 17th December 2020.
Facts of the Case
All passenger vehicles in the EU are subjected to strict carbon dioxide emissions standards per Regulation (EU) 2019/631. In this case, the company introduced a new device to improve gas emission control systems in diesel engines. The device was acknowledged as a defeat device even though in the normal vehicle use test, the device showed improvements in gas emission control. Defeat devices present a risk to the protection of the engine in accordance with article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 715/2007. Therefore, defeat devices with unjustified purposes are prohibited to ensure safe vehicle operation.
The Legal Questions
The legal questions included the interpretation of legal concepts and whether the detail produced by the car manufacturing company fitted into the definition of a defeat device. Firstly, the interpretation of this concept of “element of design” is covered in Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007, which describes a “defeat device.” Any program integrated into the engine control is to be considered an “element of design. Therefore, the answer to whether the car manufacturer’s new device was an element of design is positive. Furthermore, the next question focused on the interpretation of the concept of an “emission control system.” The emission control system comprises only these technologies and strategies purposed to treat and decrease the emission of NOx. The company’s new design element aimed to improve the gas emission control system; therefore, it fitted into the concept of the emission control system.
Next, considering the interpretation of the “defeat device” concept, a device recognizing a parameter associated with an approval process is prohibited under Article 5(2) of Regulation No 715/2007. Therefore, the company’s vehicles that featured the defeat device in the engine were prohibited per Article 5(2) of Regulation No 715/2007. The last legal question focused on the interpretation of the exceptions provided for in Article 5 of Regulation No 715/2007. In this case, the device’s use in the engine and the potential risk of slowing down the aging or cluttering up the engine did not justify its use in the vehicle.
Thus, the summary of answers to the legal questions defines that the design element which should have improved the gas emission system control did not meet safety standards for engine construction. Furthermore, a normal driving conditions test showed that the device made improvements to the gas emission control system, but its efficiency did not justify its presence in the engine. Considering the doubts the parties had in the case, the company’s improvement of the emission system with the use of the device could have justified its presence in accordance with EU goals on emission targets.
Court Reasoning
The court reasoned that vehicle manufacturers must not fit a defeat device into the car. The notion that procedure contributes to clogging up or aging prevention of the said vehicle may not justify fitting the defeat device (Court of Justice of the European Union, 2022). Another reason the court relied upon in this judgment is that the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system operation network in real traffic was steady during the approval test, as the vehicles involved produced considerably less NOx.
As vehicle engines developed by the company tended to clog up more, their regular maintenance would be more frequent, leading to higher maintenance costs. Environmental safety and emissions present a prominent factor for concerns in technical necessities. Therefore, the court approached the problem by citing that a new emission decrease from the transport sector, energy, and households, industrial and agricultural sectors should accomplish the European Union’s air quality goals. In addition, the court emphasized that manufacturers are obliged to demonstrate that every new car sold, out in community service and registered adheres to regulatory procedures.
Judgment
The initial review process is the cornerstone of the Union’s legal system. The backlash after the case was decided was far-reaching, especially in France, where fines for consumer fraud can lead to outright bans. The court’s response was to assess whether the software installed on the engine control computer or the computer itself should be considered a “structural element” in accordance with Regulation No. 715/2007. In addition, the court also held that Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007 should be interpreted to mean that a device that detects any limitations in connection with the approval process conducts a defeat device.
The case sparked several discussions about limitations imposed by the permission regulation. The case was connected by the press to a similar issue with the EA189 engine developed by Volkswagen, which occurred in 2015. The press also emphasized the connection between regulations and limitations that EU guidelines imposed on the automotive industry (Braun, 2021). The case presents an example of how automotive institutions are more affected by inefficient regulations than complications in technical solutions.
Reference
Braun, M. (2021). The EU versus the automotive industry. ATZ worldwide, 123, 10-15.
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2022). CURIA – Press releases – Court of Justice of the European Union. Curia.Europa. EU.