WRITTEN QUESTION E-3393/03 by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Moped type-approval.
Date: 2003-11-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community certification, United Kingdom, application of EU law, third-party insurance, trade restriction, two-wheeled vehicle, vehicle tax

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/537

the Commission also used its QUEST macro-economic model

to carry out a
For the evaluation,
comparative analysis of the effects of reduced VAT rates and reduced labour charges. The analysis showed
that, even if a reduction in VAT is passed on in full in domestic prices, for the same budgetary cost a
reduction in labour charges creates 52 % more jobs.

As promised in its Communication on the VAT strategy adopted in 2000 (3), the Commission adopted, on
23 July 2003, a proposal for a Directive to review and rationalise the rules and derogations concerning
reduced VAT rates (4). Its main objective was to improve the internal market by simplification and more
uniform application of VAT. It was also important to offer all Member States the same opportunities to
apply reduced rates to the same things.

In drawing up the proposal, the Commission took account of the results of the experiment but also the
VAT treatment of the services in question in the Member States. At present, four Member States (Belgium,
Greece, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) apply a reduced rate to these services on an experimental basis
and one (Ireland) applies a parking rate under a temporary derogation. Therefore these services were not
included during the rationalisation exercise.

The proposal is now being examined by the Council, which will have to decide, unanimously and in the
light of Parliament’s opinion, on the future scope of reduced VAT rates.

At present, there are no plans to introduce any other Community tax measures for tailoring.

(1) Council Directive 1999/85/EC of 22 October 1999, amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the possibility of

applying on an experimental basis a reduced VAT rate on labour-intensive services, OJ L 277, 28.10.1999.

(2) COM(2003) 309 final.
(3) COM(2000) 348 final.
(4) COM(2003) 397 final.

(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?

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

C 78 E/538

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

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 (1). 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 (2)) ‘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.
(2) OJ L 103, 2.5.1972.

(2004/C 78 E/0560)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3404/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject: Ireland and infringement cases for bad application of EU environmental legislation

1. What are the 85 cases from the period 1998 to 2002 in which Ireland received a letter of formal
notice due to the bad application of environmental law and to which directives do they relate?

2.

3.

How many implementation court cases has Ireland lost in the period 1993-2003?

How many ‘letters of formal notice’ were delivered to Ireland in the period 1993 to 1998?

4. What are the cases for which the Commission has officially opened files relating to Ireland but which
have not yet led to a letter of formal notice?

Regarding other Member States, in how many cases has the Commission issued a ‘reasoned opinion’

5.
during the period 1993 to 2003?