EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/537

(2004/C 78 E/0559)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3393/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject: Moped type-approval

In the European Directive on type-approval 2002/24/EC (1), a clear distinction is made between ordinary mopeds and low-performance mopeds. The note on Annex 1 states that ‘separate Directives will lay down specific requirements for low-performance mopeds, i.e. mopeds with pedals, with an auxiliary engine of power not exceeding 1 kW and a maximum design speed not exceeding 25 km/h’. Nevertheless, the UK Government has not made any concessions for motorised bicycles, and, in the UK, DVLA registration, tax, MOT, third-party insurance, road tax and the wearing of a crash helmet are obligatory. In Germany, this is not the case: none of these are required.

Does the Commission take the view that the UK is acting illegally by not distinguishing between ordinary mopeds and low-performance mopeds?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Directive 2002/24/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 March 2002 relates to the type approval of two and three-wheeled motor vehicles (2). It does not regulate the conditions under which such vehicles may be used in the Member States. In the absence of Community harmonising rules, Member States have a wide discretion as to the rules they adopt in relation to the use of motorised bicycles on public roads.

The fact that, in relation to the requirements laid down for type approval, the Directive distinguishes between categories of cycles with pedal assistance and indicates that specific type approval requirements will be laid down for low performance mopeds in no way obliges Member States to make a similar distinction in their rules regarding the use of such vehicles. Therefore, the Commission considers that the United Kingdom is not acting in a manner incompatible with the Directive in failing to distinguish between ordinary and low performance mopeds in relation to such matters as registration, road tax, Ministry of Transport test (MOT) requirements, third-party insurance and the obligation to wear a crash helmet.

To the extent that the burdensome character of the rules imposed by a Member State for the use of a product may hinder the import of such product from other Member States, the Commission wonders whether the United Kingdom's rules on the use of low performance mopeds amount to an unjustified measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on trade in the meaning of Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty. However, it is not apparent from the Honourable Member's question that the United Kingdom's rules at stake are creating a barrier to imports.

Furthermore, the Commission notes that, even if this should appear to be the case, at least some of the obligations imposed by the United Kingdom (such as the one concerning third-party insurance or the compulsory wearing of a crash helmet) may be considered as justified under public health or road security considerations, i.e. either under one of the explicit grounds set by Article 30 of the EC Treaty or under an overriding requirement in the general public interest as defined by the Court of Justice.

Furthermore the Commission recalls that, under the First Motor Insurance Directive (72/5/EEC (3)) ‘any motor vehicle intended for travel on land and propelled by mechanical power, but not running on rails, and any trailer, whether or not coupled’ must have a compulsory insurance cover. Therefore, also in this perspective it appears that the United Kingdom can legitimately impose that low performance mopeds be covered by motor third party liability insurance.

(1) OJ L 124, 9.5.2002, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 124, 9.5.2002.

(3) OJ L 103, 2.5.1972.