Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2025:753
Date: 2025-10-01
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - decision unnecessary
Origin: Austria

Translation C-751/24 – 1 
Case C-751/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
29 October 2024 
Referring court: 
Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien (Austria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
27 September 2024 
Applicant: 
Gebrüder Weiss GmbH 
Defendant: 
Volkswagen AG 
  
ORDER 
IN THE MATTER OF 
Applicant […] 
Gebrüder Weiss Gesellschaft m.b.H. 
[…] Lauterach 
[…] 
[…] 
Defendant 
Volkswagen AG […] 
[…] Wolfsburg, Germany 
 
Concerning: EUR 10 232.84 
[…] 
The following question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 TFEU: 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 9. 2024 – CASE C-751/24 
 
2  
Must the provisions 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 (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1), 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), in the light of the judgment of 31 March 2023, Mercedes Benz 
Group (C-100/21, EU:C:2023:229), be interpreted as protecting the specific 
interests of the individual purchaser of a motor vehicle vis-à-vis the manufacturer 
of the engine installed in that vehicle, where that engine has been equipped by its 
manufacturer with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of 
Regulation No 715/2007 but the vehicle manufacturer within the meaning of 
Article 3(27) of Directive 2007/46 is not the engine manufacturer but a subsidiary 
that is 100% beneficially owned by the engine manufacturer? 
The proceedings are stayed, pursuant to Paragraph 90a(1) of the 
Gerichtsorganisationsgesetz (Law on the organisation of the courts), until the 
preliminary ruling is received from the Court of Justice of the European Union. 
Grounds 
The facts of the main proceedings 
[1] The applicant is seeking damages from the defendant for the purchase of 
vehicles equipped with prohibited defeat devices. It states that the defendant is not 
the manufacturer of the vehicle but of the engine. The applicant states that it has 
also brought an action against the vehicle manufacturer. The latter has argued in 
those proceedings that it neither developed the engine nor was involved in that 
development and therefore did not passively legitimise it. However, the vehicle 
manufacturer is de facto controlled by the defendant. 
[2] The defendant disputes this, objecting that the vehicles were not equipped 
with any ‘manipulation software’ and not affected by any official recall relating to 
a ‘prohibited defeat device’. It submits that it did not even manufacture the 
vehicle. 
Applicable European Union law 
Framework Directive 2007/46/EC 
[3] As the action was brought on 30 July 2020, Framework Directive 
2007/46/EC, which was repealed with effect from 1 September 2020, applies. 
[4] Recital 3 of the Framework Directive read as follows: 
GEBRÜDER WEISS 
 
3 
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 2(1) of the Framework Directive read as follows: 
… This Directive also applies to parts and equipment intended for vehicles 
covered by this Directive. 
[6] Article 3(27) of the Framework Directive read as follows: 
‘manufacturer’ means the person or body who is responsible to the approval 
authority for all aspects of the type-approval or authorisation process and for 
ensuring conformity of production. It is not essential that the person or body be 
directly involved in all stages of the construction of the vehicle, system, 
component or separate technical unit which is the subject of the approval process; 
[7] Article 7(1) of the Framework Directive, on the procedure to be followed for 
the EC type-approval of systems, components or separate technical units, read as 
follows: 
The manufacturer shall submit the application to the approval authority. Only one 
application may be submitted in respect of a particular type of system, component 
or separate technical unit and it may be submitted in only one Member State. A 
separate application shall be submitted for each type to be approved. 
[8] Article 18(1) of the Framework Directive read as follows: 
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. 
[9] Article 19 of the Framework Directive read as follows: 
1. The manufacturer of a component or separate technical unit, whether or not 
it is part of a system, shall affix to each component or unit manufactured in 
conformity with the approved type the EC type-approval mark, required by the 
relevant separate directive or regulation. 
… 
3. The EC type-approval mark shall be in accordance with the Appendix to 
Annex VII. 
[10] Article 28(1) of the Framework Directive read as follows: 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 9. 2024 – CASE C-751/24 
 
4  
Member States shall permit the sale or entry into service of components or 
separate technical units if and only if they comply with the requirements of the 
relevant regulatory acts and are properly marked in accordance with Article 19. 
[11] Article 30(1) of the Framework Directive read as follows: 
 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. 
[12] Article 46 of the Framework Directive read as follows: 
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. 
Regulation No 715/2007 
[13] Article 5(1) and (2) of Regulation No 715/2007 reads as follows: 
1. The manufacturer shall equip vehicles so that the components likely to affect 
emissions are designed, constructed and assembled so as to enable the vehicle, in 
normal use, to comply with this Regulation and its implementing measures. 
2. The use of defeat devices that reduce the effectiveness of emission control 
systems shall be prohibited. The prohibition shall not apply where: (a) the need 
for the device is justified in terms of protecting the engine against damage or 
accident and for safe operation of the vehicle; … 
Applicable national law 
[14] Paragraph 1293 of the Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (General Civil 
Code) reads as follows: 
Damage means any detriment caused to a person’s assets, rights or person. That 
is distinct from loss of the profit that a person may reasonably expect in the 
normal course of events. 
GEBRÜDER WEISS 
 
5 
[15] Paragraph 1311 of the General Civil Code reads as follows: 
The person whose property or person is affected by mere coincidence shall bear 
the consequences therefrom. However, if a person has caused the coincidental 
occurrence culpably or has infringed a law intended to prevent coincidental 
damage or has interfered without need in the affairs of a third party, that person 
shall be liable for any detriment which would not otherwise have occurred. 
Jurisprudence and case-law: 
[16] The Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) ruled in case reference 4 
Ob 171/23k that, under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, the use of 
defeat devices that reduce the effectiveness of emission control systems is 
generally prohibited. 
… 
[17] A ‘temperature window’ on the basis of which exhaust gas recirculation at 
the full rate occurs only within a certain temperature range, while being 
successively reduced at temperatures above or below that range, is a defeat 
device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007. 
… 
[18] Accordingly, a defeat device which systematically improves the performance 
of the emission control system during registration procedures so that the emission 
limit values set in Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 can be complied with and the 
vehicles in question can be registered cannot fall under the exception provided for 
in point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) 
No 715/2007. 
… 
[19] However, should a defendant wish to rely on an exception to the prohibition 
laid down in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, it is for the defendant 
to claim and prove that the conditions required for that exception apply. 
… 
[20] It follows from this that an individual vehicle purchaser may bring a claim 
for damages based on tortious liability in respect of the (purely culpable) 
infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, which must be 
characterised as a protective provision, against the person or body that was 
identified as the vehicle manufacturer in the type-approval procedure and that 
issued the certificate of conformity. 
[21] The Supreme Court also ruled in case reference 6 Ob 161/22b – on the basis 
of the CJEU judgment in Case C-100/21, QB v Mercedes-Benz Group AG – that 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 9. 2024 – CASE C-751/24 
 
6  
the protective purpose of (inter alia) Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 
covers the specific interests of the individual purchaser of a vehicle equipped with 
a prohibited defeat device … and affirmed the protection of the individual 
purchaser of a vehicle equipped with a prohibited defeat device vis-à-vis the 
manufacturer of that vehicle. 
… 
[22] In particular, since the manufacturer of a vehicle must comply with the 
requirements arising from Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 when issuing 
the certificate of conformity to the individual purchaser of that vehicle with a view 
to the registration and sale or entry into service of that vehicle, that certificate 
allows that purchaser to be protected against that manufacturer’s failure to fulfil 
its obligation to place on the market vehicles which comply with that provision 
(CJEU C-100/21, QB v Mercedes-Benz Group AG). It follows from this that an 
individual vehicle purchaser may bring a claim for damages based on tortious 
liability in respect of the (purely culpable) infringement of Article 5(2) of 
Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, which must be characterised as a protective 
provision, against the person or body that was identified as the vehicle 
manufacturer in the type-approval procedure and that issued the certificate of 
conformity. 
… 
[23] The applicant therefore cannot base its claim for damages against the 
defendant, which is not the vehicle manufacturer, on infringement of a protective 
provision. 
[24] The Court of Justice ruled in Case C-100/21, QB v Mercedes-Benz Group 
AG, formerly Daimler AG, as follows: 
[81] When acquiring a vehicle model of a type that has been approved and is, 
therefore, accompanied by a certificate of conformity, an individual purchaser 
can reasonably expect that Regulation No 715/2007, and, inter alia, Article 5 
thereof, has been complied with in respect of that vehicle. 
[82] Consequently, it follows from the provisions of the Framework Directive 
referred to in paragraphs 78 to 80 above that it establishes a direct link between 
the car manufacturer and the individual purchaser of a motor vehicle intended to 
guarantee to the latter that that vehicle complies with the relevant EU legislation. 
In particular, since the manufacturer of a vehicle must comply with the 
requirements arising from Article 5 of Regulation No 715/2007 when issuing the 
certificate of conformity to the individual purchaser of that vehicle with a view to 
the registration and sale or entry into service of that vehicle, that certificate 
allows that purchaser to be protected against that manufacturer’s failure to fulfil 
its obligation to place on the market vehicles which comply with that provision. 
Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling 
GEBRÜDER WEISS 
 
7 
[25] The Court of Justice has given no definitive statement on who can be held 
liable in the event of infringement of those obligations. 
[26] Framework Directive 2007/46 imposes no less stringent requirements on the 
manufacturers of components or separate technical units than on vehicle 
manufacturers. For example, it demands that the EU type-approval mark be 
affixed to components (Article 19) as a prerequisite for selling them (Article 28) 
and allows type-approval to be withdrawn in the event that new vehicles, systems, 
components or separate technical units deviate from the approved type 
(Article 30). 
[27] Would it not contradict the objectives of Framework Directive 2007/46 if 
the purchaser of a vehicle, in the event of an unlawful defeat device having been 
installed in the engine, were protected vis-à-vis the vehicle manufacturer under 
Regulation No 715/2007 but not vis-à-vis the engine manufacturer under 
Framework Directive 2007/46, even though the engine manufacturer had attached 
an incorrect type-approval mark? Would the contradiction not be all the more 
severe where that took place within an affiliated group of companies and the 
vehicle manufacture was 100% owned by the engine manufacturer? Otherwise, 
the vehicle manufacturer could evade liability under Regulation No 715/2007 by 
delivering the engines equipped with prohibited defeat devices to a subsidiary 
established as a manufacturer. 
Final remarks 
[28] The Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien (District Court for Commercial 
Matters, Vienna, Austria), as a court of a Member State, is entitled under 
Article 267 TFEU to refer the questions set out in the operative part because there 
is doubt as to the correct application of EU law within the scope in question. 
[29] Paragraph 90a(1) of the Law on the organisation of the courts requires a stay 
of proceedings until the Court of Justice of the European Union has given its 
ruling. 
[…]