Filed under: Europe, Government/Legal, Safety, Mercedes-Benz, Luxury
France’s highest administrative court said yesterday that authorities must resume registering Daimler vehicles, which were formally banned in late July, Automotive News reports, even though they are still equipped with R134a air-conditioning refrigerant.
The refrigerant is illegal in the European Union and is the reason for this legal battle, which has restricted the registration of Mercedes-Benz A-, B-, CLA- and SL-Class vehicles in France. But it turns out that the French government’s use of an EU “safeguard” provision to ban registration of the Mercedes-Benz vehicles, which allows countries to block sales of vehicles that would “seriously harm the environment,” wasn’t justified. Why? Because the use of R134a doesn’t appear to be an immediate danger to the environment, the Paris-based court said.
The new chemical, R1234yf, was made the EU’s standard for a/c systems because it emits fewer greenhouse gases into the environment. Daimler says it continues to use R134a because it found R1234yf to be flammable in testing. The German automaker also argues that approval of the use of R134a by the German Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) should be good enough permission for it to sell cars in Europe.
The current state of the situation prompted Daimler to say it expects French authorities to start registering its vehicles tomorrow.
Daimler to resume French sales per court ruling originally appeared on Autoblog on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:29:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink | Email this | Comments
Continue reading “Report: Daimler to resume French sales per court ruling”
Ford and Daimler have scored a major victory in a long-running lawsuit filed in US federal court by unnamed South African nationals. The suit alleges that both manufacturers and their subsidiaries sold their vehicles to the South African military, despite knowing that they’d be involved in violently putting down anti-apartheid protesters.
The California court system has found that Toyota Motor Insurance Services does not violate the state’s consumer warranty law. According to Automotive News, a court of appeal found that the contracts offer enough services outside of the factory warranty to be considered legal. Toyota was originally sued after Weber DeSiqueira purchased a then-new 2007 Tundra. At the time, the vehicle came with a three-year, 36,000 mile warranty, but DeSiqueira also laid down $1,145 for a Toyota Extra Care Vehicle Service Agreement. The lawsuit alleged that the service agreement covered the same items as the factory, putting the Japanese automaker in violation of the California warranty law.
