- New decision of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) on -
Statute of limitations?
Claims for damages in the diesel scandal
On July 29, 2021, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) had to rule on questions of the statute of limitations for claims for damages (Case No. VI ZR 1118/20).
In 2013, the plaintiff purchased a passenger car equipped with a manipulated diesel engine of type EA189. In 2019, he filed a lawsuit and demanded compensation from the manufacturer.
The Naumburg Higher Regional Court held that the claim was already time-barred under Section 826 of the German Civil Code. In principle, according to § 199 BGB, the regular limitation period of three years begins at the end of the year in which the plaintiff becomes aware (or should have become aware) of the circumstances giving rise to the claim.
Your contact
Julia Robl
Ruling of the BGH
The BGH, on the other hand, considered it insufficiently established by the court of appeal that the plaintiff possessed the required grossly negligent ignorance of the circumstances giving rise to the claim (i.e., the tampering with the car) - although the extensive reporting could lead to the assumption that this was the case.
In addition, the Federal Court of Justice clarified that in the present case the statute of limitations was in any case suspended by the registration of the plaintiff's claim in the register of actions of the model declaratory action: In the case of a validly filed claim, the effect of suspension pursuant to Sec. 204 (1) no. 1a of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch - BGB) is, in principle, already triggered when the model declaratory action is filed and not only when the claim is validly filed in the model declaratory action register.
The model declaratory judgment action is a civil-law collective action that can be brought by a consumer association. It serves to establish the existence or non-existence of factual or legal preconditions for the existence or non-existence of claims or legal relationships between consumers and companies.
Finally, the Federal Court of Justice also ruled that even if this determination of claims or legal relationships is not the consumer's objective and he has registered with the register of complaints solely for the purpose of suspending the statute of limitations, the suspension effect still applies. The Federal Supreme Court rejected a refusal of the inhibition effect due to good faith (§ 242 BGB).
In this ruling, too, the Federal Supreme Court has continued its consumer-friendly line. Those affected by the diesel scandal can only be advised - even if claims already appear to be time-barred - to nevertheless contact experts who will carefully examine all legal options.
