EU court in Austria advised Volkswagen vehicles using 'illegal' emissions software

An advisor to Europe's highest court in Austria has said that technology currently used in Volkswagen Group vehicles to alter emissions could still be illegal.

The Advocate General Athanasios Rantos told the European Court of Justice that software used to alter emissions based on temperature and altitude is illegal only unless it is used to prevent sudden and dangerous engine damage from occurring, reports Reuters.

The court heard that the emissions system fitted to Volkswagen vehicles is only designed to work between 15 and 33 degrees Celsius – outside of the average annual temperatures of Austria and Germany.

It’s also understood the technology only works below an altitude of 1000 metres, while the average altitude of Austria sits at 910 metres.

The case is the latest step in a series of proceedings involving the German carmaker's 2015 Dieselgate scandal.

In software in question is the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system, which is specifically designed to reduce harmful nitrogen oxide (NOx) gasses. As the name suggests, it works by sending exhaust fumes back through to the intake manifold – using water vapour to decrease combustion temperatures and reduce NOx output.

2

The first EGR valves appeared on vehicles in the 1970s, but the European Union has mandated the system as the main NOx reduction strategy on most types of diesel engines since Euro 1 legislation was introduced in 2005. Though working parameters are set by each manufacturer, EGRs are common in the automotive industry.

While the Advocate General said the technology might not be appropriate for the average conditions in Austria, Volkswagen argued the EGR system was permissible under the law as its purpose was to prevent sudden and immediate risk of engine damage.

The advisor, however, also noted the same court had ruled last December that any emissions-rigging software was illegal, even if it contributed to preventing ageing or clogging up of the engine.

The Advocate General’s independent legal opinion is non-binding, but judges traditionally follow the advice given by the advisor, with a ruling taking up to six months or more.