Dieselgate continued: this time, the Supreme Court had to deal with the burden of proof that were interpreted differently by all three court instances. The plaintiff, owner of an Audi Q5 with the VW-diesel engine type EA 189 EU5 that was equipped with a prohibited deactivation device, requested that the purchase contract be rescinded. It was unclear, however, which of the parties had to prove what, and whether each of them had met their respective burden of proof.
Jakob Widner discusses these decisions in his recent ILO-article.
Read the article here or in the Litigation Newsletter of the International Law Office.
