The Procedure Against OPEL and VAUXHALL

Opel used to be the Netherlands’ best-selling car brand. In the UK, Opel cars are sold under the Vauxhall brand name. In 2017, Opel (and Vauxhall) became part of the former PSA Group, which has since merged with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) into Stellantis in 2021. Between 2009 and 2019 Opel sold approximately 110,000 diesel vehicles in the Netherlands alone. The number of vehicles sold on the European market is in the millions.

According to various sources of information researched by and available to the Foundation, all these Opel and Vauxhall diesel vehicles were fitted with illegal defeat devices. These illegal defeat devices ensure that the vehicles concerned `comply` with the EU type-approval emission standards while being tested, whilst, in reality, when in ordinary use by their purchasers, they do not. The Euro 5 vehicles (that were sold from 2009 to 2014) contained, inter alia, a thermal window that ensures that the emission control systems shut down between temperatures of 20 to 30 degrees Celsius. In addition, the Euro 6 vehicles (2015 to 2019) also included additional illegal defeat devices that ensure that the LNT or SCR catalysts only work properly during testing. When used on the road, the operation of the emission control system is drastically reduced. As a result, Opel’s Euro 6 vehicles do not even meet the Euro 3 standard under normal driving conditions. Consequently, Opel is one of the worst polluters in the car manufacturing industry, with emissions that can reach as much as 16 times the applicable emission norm. This diesel fraud has not come to an end yet. Even as recently as January 2022, the German type approval authority, the KBA, found illegal defeat devices in a large amount of Opel vehicles.

Opel’s Reaction

With its actions, Opel has caused extensive damage. The market for diesel cars has plummeted and the value of diesel cars has been reduced considerably. Moreover, the environment and public health have suffered as a consequence of Opel’s behaviour.

The German authorities did initiate criminal proceedings against Opel, but this matter was settled quickly by Opel. In addition, a criminal investigation into the role of various Opel employees is still ongoing in Germany. However, Opel continues to present itself as a “green” company and acts like it is unaware of any wrongdoing.

Our goals

Individual car owners don’t have the means to hold large international companies like Stellantis accountable. As a result, large companies tend to go free resulting in their customers being left empty-handed. The consequences of Opel’s (and Stellantis’) wrongdoing are, amongst others, a lower sales value of the diesel cars on the second-hand market and higher maintenance costs. However, relatively new legislation in the Netherlands, called the WAMCA, makes it possible for representatives like the Foundation to file a collective claim for damages on behalf of all injured parties. If this new legislation is found to be applicable, this may allow the Foundation to recover financial or other compensation to which you may be entitled on your behalf, without any risk to you. The Foundation has already initiated class actions against five large automotive concerns (of which two are against Stellantis). With this, the Foundation has acquired substantial experience with tracking down illegal defeat devices and identifying affected vehicles. The Foundation has close relations with a leading IT expert that previously exposed the functioning of defeat devices in cars of different brands, namely Volkswagen, Fiat, and Mercedes-Benz. The Foundation is currently the only Dutch representative that has this type of (technical) expertise. This expertise can and will ensure that the Foundation can make a difference. This expertise is what makes the Foundation the most suitable party to pursue your interests.

CASE INFO

The Foundation started proceedings against, amongst others, Opel and Vauxhall on 19 January 2022. The case is pending before the Amsterdam District Court and is registered under case number C/13/712812 / HA ZA 22-72. The defendants in the proceedings are Stellantis N.V., Stellantis Nederland B.V., PSA Automobiles S.A., Automobiles Peugeot S.A., Automobiles Citroën S.A.S., Opel Automobile GmbH, Adam Opel GmbH, General Motors Company, General Motors LLC, General Motors Holdings LLC, Vauxhall Motors Limited, Vauxhall Finance plc, IBC Vehicles Limited, PSA Retail UK Limited, and 126 Dutch car dealers. A list of all the car dealers involved in the proceedings can be found here.

CURRENT STATUS

On 11 February, 2025, a hearing will take place on the substance of the case. At this hearing, the following topics will be discussed: the liability of the defendants, the burden of proof and the question whether the court will order Opel/ Peugeot/ Citroën to inform the court which defeat devices it installed in its vehicles, as the court did previously in the proceedings against Mercedes and Renault. In addition, the court will deal with the question whether it is authorized to rule on the presence and (il)legality of defeat devices. The parties submitted briefs on this topic. In the proceedings against Mercedes, the court already ruled that it is authorized to rule on this issue.   

OVERVIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS

• On 19 January 2022, Emissions Justice served a writ of summons on Peugeot, Citroën, DS, Opel, Vauxhall, and General Motors and their parent company Stellantis N.V. The writ of summons can be found Emissions Justice also summoned 126 Dutch car dealers who sold cars by these car manufacturers. Previously, on 17 august 2021, Emissions Justice had requested the Amsterdam district court to extend the period in which Emissions Justice could also initiate a collective action against the same defendants. Emissions Justice had to do so because another foundation, Stichting Emission Claim, had already started a collective action some of the same defendants against. The Amsterdam district court granted Emissions Justice’s request and extended the time limit with three months (see decision). Stichting Car Claim, another foundation, also requested an extension and was also granted this.
• On 16 February 2022, 4 May 2022, and 11 May 2022, the car manufacturers appeared in the proceedings. However, the car dealers failed to appear and were declared to be in default by the court.
• On 22 June 2022, the court proposed the procedural order. The parties were allowed to respond to the proposal. Emissions Justice did so on 6 July 2022. On 20 July 2022, the court adopted the procedural order. The procedural order can be found here. The first phase of the proceedings deals with jurisdiction of the Amsterdam court, which collective action regime is applicable, admissibility of the Emissions Justice and the other foundations and the applicable law.
• On 17 August 2022, Emissions Justice submitted a brief on the appointment of the exclusive representative in these proceedings.
• On 5 October 2022, the car dealers appeared in the proceedings.
• On 9 November 2022, the defendants submitted a statement of defence regarding jurisdiction, applicable law, admissibility of Emissions Justice, the exclusive representative, and the applicability of the WAMCA.
• On 14 March 2023, a hearing took place before the Amsterdam District Court on the aforementioned issues.
• The court rendered its judgment on 16 August 2023. The decision can be found here. In short, it ruled that it only has jurisdiction over Dutch car owners and the old collective action law applies. Regarding the WAMCA decision, there are currently appeal proceedings pending in the collective actions against Volkswagen et al. and Fiat et al., where a similar decision on WAMCA has been made. If the appellate court overturns the decisions on WAMCA in those proceedings, the Amsterdam district court may apply the WAMCA in these proceedings after all.
• In relation to its admissibility, the court  requested Emissions Justice to submit the litigation funding agreement to the court. Emissions Justice did so on 13 September 2023.
• By decision of 29 November 2023, the court declared Emissions Justice admissible in its claims and ordered the defendants to submit their statement of defense on the merits of the claim on 21 February 2024. The decision can be found here. The defendants requested an extension and submitted their statement of defense on 6 March 2024.
• In their statement of defense, the dealers requested permission to file a recourse claim against the manufacturers. This claim entails that if the dealers are liable towards the foundations, Stellantis is liable towards the dealers. The court allowed the motion.
• On 10 April, the manufacturers sent a letter to the court containing a case management proposal.  Emissions Justice filed a counter proposal suggesting that the court make use of its power to request the manufacturers to answer questions regarding the nature of their defeat devices. A decision on this issue is expected shortly.
• On 3 July, the court rendered an interim decision. In that decision, the court inter alia deferred its decision on the rendering of the requested information order. Instead, the court ordered a hearing on the liability of the defendants. During this hearing, the parties will also discuss the need for the requested information order. This hearing will likely take place in February/ March 2025.
• On July 3, 2024, the court rendered an interim judgement. In this judgement it concluded that at this stage in the proceedings there is no reason to provide an information order. On February 11, 2025, a hearing will take place on the substance of the case. The hearing will focus on the liability of the defendants and the request to render an information order as requested by the plaintiffs.
• By interim decision of September 18, 2024, the court requested the parties to submit briefs regarding the question whether the court is authorized to rule on the presence and (il)legality of defeat devices or whether it is bound by the decisions of the relevant type approval organization. These briefs have meanwhile been served with the court. Meanwhile, a judgment on this question has been passed in the case against Mercedes in which the court ruled that it is authorized to rule on these issues. Emissions Justice therefore expects a similar decision in the case against Opel/ Peugeot/ Citroën.