Case C-692/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juge d’instruction du tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 29 October 2018 — Criminal proceedings against Z
Date: 2018-10-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EC conformity marking, anti-pollution device, approval, combustion gases, designs and models, motor vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, reduction of gas emissions, software, vehicle parts








C_2021252EN.01000302.xml










28.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juge d’instruction du tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 29 October 2018 — Criminal proceedings against Z
(Case C-692/18)
(2021/C 252/04)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Juge d’instruction du tribunal de grande instance de Paris

Party to the main proceedings

Z

Other parties: DV, IA, ATPIC, EW and Others, Consommation, logement et cadre de vie (CLCV), Conseil national des associations familiales laïques (CNAFAL), FX, France Nature Environnement, Générations futures, GY, Greenpeace France, HZ and Others, Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir)
By order of 6 May 2021, the Court (Seventh Chamber) ruled:






1.


Article 3(10) 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 (1) must be interpreted as meaning that software installed or acting on the electronic engine controller constitutes an ‘element of design’, within the meaning of that provision, where it acts on the operation of the emission control system and reduces its effectiveness.










2.


Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of an ‘emission control system’, within the meaning of that provision, covers both ‘exhaust gas after-treatment’ technologies and strategies that reduce emissions downstream, namely after their formation, and those which, like the exhaust gas recirculation system, reduce emissions upstream, namely during their formation.










3.


Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that a device which detects any parameter related to the conduct of the approval procedures provided for by that regulation in order to improve the performance of the emission control system during those procedures, and thus to obtain approval of the vehicle, constitutes a ‘defeat device’ within the meaning of that provision, even if such an improvement may also be observed, occasionally, under normal conditions of vehicle use.










4.


Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation No 715/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that a defeat device which systematically improves the performance of the vehicle emission control system during type-approval procedures in order to comply with the emission limits laid down by that regulation, and thus obtain the approval of those vehicles, cannot fall within the scope of the exception to the prohibition on such devices laid down in that provision, which relates to the protection of the engine against damage or accident and the safe operation of the vehicle, even if such a device helps to prevent the ageing or clogging up of the engine.






(1)  OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1.