Broadway

Complete News World

Great Britain – ECJ: No compensation for previously unfair energy measurement in vacuum cleaners

Great Britain – ECJ: No compensation for previously unfair energy measurement in vacuum cleaners

Dyson vacuum cleaner Image: AFP

Vacuum cleaner manufacturer Dyson receives no compensation for previous energy labeling adverse to the company. The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg dismissed the related case in the final case on Thursday.

Vacuum cleaner manufacturer Dyson will not receive any compensation for previous energy labeling adverse to the company. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg dismissed the related case in the final case on Thursday. EU labels for the energy efficiency of vacuum cleaners valid from September 2014 to early 2019 favor classic pack vacuum cleaners. (Reference: C-122/22 P)

Power consumption is measured when the container is empty to classify the different efficiency classes. With bag vacuum cleaners, consumption increases throughout the bag, while it remains constant with bagless vacuum cleaners.

Tyson introduced cyclone vacuum cleaners called bagless, in which the dust collected in a container does not increase energy consumption. Such devices are now available from other manufacturers as well.

Tyson – then British and from 2019 headquartered in Singapore – saw itself at a disadvantage from the start. In response, the EU Commission responded that there was no reliable comparable measurement method other than measuring energy consumption in an empty bag.

It was only in November 2018 that the Court of First Instance of the European Union (EC) declared the EU regulation on the energy efficiency labeling of vacuum cleaners null and void. Since no new process has been developed yet, vacuum cleaners are sold without energy consumption labeling from 2019.

Dyson sought compensation of 176.1 million euros from the EU Commission. In 2021, the ECJ and now finally the ECJ dismissed the case. The EU Commission faced considerable legal problems and, above all, “the technical complexity of the issues to be resolved”. Their fault was therefore “excusable” and their breach of EU law was not “serious enough” to justify paying compensation.

Home page