Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2010:530
Date: 2010-09-16
Language of the case: Dutch
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Measures having equivalent effect;Approximation of laws;Quantitative restrictions;Transport
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Judgment 1. Approximation of laws – Motor vehicles – Community type-approval procedure – Directives 92/61 and 2002/24 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/24; Directive 92/61) 2. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect (Arts 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU) 1. Directive 92/61 relating to the type-approval of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles, and Directive 2002/24 relating to the type-approval of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles and repealing Directive 92/61 are to be construed as meaning that, when a vehicle or a component or separate technical unit thereof does not qualify for the type-approval procedure established by those directives, on the ground that it does not come within their ambit, the provisions of those directives do not prevent a Member State from introducing, in its domestic law and in relation to such vehicle, component or separate technical unit, a similar mechanism for recognising the checks carried out by other Member States. In that regard, as Union law now stands, a component or separate technical unit cannot qualify for the Union type-approval mechanism if its purpose is to modify the technical characteristics of a moped in such a way that the moped can no longer be defined as such under Directives 92/61 and 2002/24 having regard, in particular, to its power. In any event, such legislation must comply with Union law, in particular Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU. (see paras 40, 48, operative part) 2. A general prohibition of the sale and use of equipment designed to increase the power and/or speed of mopeds may impede the free movement of these goods. Such an obstacle is prohibited by Article 34 TFEU unless it can be justified on one of the public interest grounds set out in Article 36 TFEU or in order to meet imperative requirements. If such a prohibition can be justified, in particular, by the objective of ensuring road safety, that measure must be appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it. In that regard, as the general prohibition of the sale and use of equipment designed to increase the power and/or speed of mopeds travelling on the public highway necessarily has the effect of impeding their use, for example, for sporting activities off the public highway, it must be asked if there is a measure less restrictive than a general prohibition but effective in ensuring road safety, which it is a matter for the national court to determine. (see paras 44-47)