CELEX: 62009CC0142
Language: en
Date: 2010-09-16
Title: Opinion of Mr Advocate General Jääskinen delivered on 16 September 2010. # Criminal proceedings against Vincent Willy Lahousse and Lavichy BVBA. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Dendermonde - Belgium. # Directives 92/61/EEC and 2002/24/EC - Type-approval of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles - Vehicles intended for use in competition, on roads or in off-road conditions - National legislation prohibiting the manufacture, marketing and use of equipment designed to increase the engine power and/or speed of mopeds. # Case C-142/09.

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
      JÄÄSKINEN
      delivered on 16 September 2010 1(1)
      
      Case C‑142/09
      Ministère public 
      v
      V.W. Lahousse and Lavichy BVBA
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Dendermonde (Belgium))
      (Type-approval of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles – Exclusion of vehicles intended for use in competition, on roads or in off-road conditions – National legislation prohibiting the marketing and use of equipment designed to increase the power or speed of mopeds)
      1.        By its question referred for a preliminary ruling, (2) the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Dendermonde (Court of First Instance, Dendermonde) (Belgium), seeks an interpretation
         of Article 1(1)(d) of Directive 2002/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 March 2002 relating to the
         type-approval of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles and repealing Council Directive 92/61/EEC. (3)
      
      2.        More specifically, the Court is asked to rule on national anti-tampering measures for two- or three-wheel vehicles. The national
         law at issue prohibits, inter alia, the marketing and use of equipment designed to increase the engine power and/or speed
         of mopeds. Consequently, the Court is being called on to examine whether and, where necessary, to what extent equipment for
         tuning a moped beyond the technical specifications referred to in the European Union legislation may benefit from the free
         movement of goods guaranteed under European Union law.
      
      3.         For the purposes of this opinion, I should point out that the definition of ‘moped’ within the meaning of Directive 2002/24
         is an autonomous, unequivocal concept of European Union law. According to the secondary legislation, any vehicle presented
         as a moped which does not meet this definition is therefore a ‘non-moped’.
      
      I –  Legal framework
      A –    European Union law
      4.        Directive 2002/24 repealed Council Directive 92/61/EEC of 30 June 1992 relating to the type-approval of two- or three-wheel
         motor vehicles. (4)
      
      5.        As stated in the sixth recital in the preamble to Directive 2002/24, the procedure for Community type-approval of two- or
         three-wheel motor vehicles is intended to enable each Member State to confirm that each type of vehicle has undergone the
         checks provided for in the separate directives and has been issued with a type-approval certificate.
      
      6.        Article 1 of Directive 2002/24 is worded as follows:
      
      ‘1.      This Directive applies to all two- or three-wheel motor vehicles, whether twin-wheeled or otherwise, intended to travel on
         the road, and to the components or separate technical units of such vehicles.
      
      This Directive does not apply to the following vehicles:
      …;
      (d)      vehicles intended for use in competition, on roads or in off-road conditions;
      …;
      nor to the components or technical units thereof unless they are intended to be fitted to vehicles covered by this Directive.
      …’
      7.        Article 4 of Directive 2002/24 provides that:
      
      ‘1.      Each Member State shall grant type-approval to all types of vehicle, systems, separate technical units or components if these
         meet the following conditions:
      
      …
      (b)      the system, separate technical unit or component meets the technical requirements of the relevant separate directive and is
         as described by the manufacturer in accordance with the data provided for in the exhaustive list set out in Annex I;
      
      …’
      8.        Under Article 15 of that directive, which appears in Chapter III, entitled ‘Conditions attached to free movement, provisional
         arrangements, exemptions and alternative procedures’:
      
      ‘1.      Member States shall not prohibit the placing on the market, sale, entry into service or use of new vehicles complying with
         this Directive. Only vehicles complying with this Directive may be presented for initial registration.
      
      2.      Member States shall not prohibit the placing on the market, sale or use of new separate technical units or new components
         complying with this Directive. Only separate technical units and components complying with this Directive may be placed on
         the market and sold for the first time for use in the Member States.
      
      3.      By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2:
      (a) Member States may exempt vehicles, systems, separate technical units and components intended: 
      (i) either for production in small series of up to a maximum of 200 units a year per type of vehicle, per system, per component
         or per separate technical unit;
      
      (ii) or for the armed forces, law enforcement agencies, civil defence services, fire brigades or public-works bodies,
      from compliance with any of the requirements of the separate directives.
      The other Member States shall be informed of these exemptions within one month of their being granted. Within three months
         these Member States shall decide whether they accept the type-approval for vehicles to be registered within their territory.
         The certificate of such type-approval may not bear the heading “EC type-approval certificate”;
      
      …
      4.      This Directive shall not affect the right of the Member States to lay down – in accordance with the Treaty – the requirements
         which they consider necessary to ensure the protection of users during the use of the vehicles in question, provided that
         this does not entail modification to the vehicles.’
      
      9.        Part 2 of Annex II to Directive 2002/24 refers, for certain technical characteristics of the systems, components and separate
         technical units covered by it, to separate directives which lay down the technical requirements to qualify for the type-approval
         procedure.
      
      10.      As provided in recital 3 in the preamble to Directive 97/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1997
         on certain components and characteristics of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles: (5)
      
      ‘the drawing-up of harmonised requirements concerning those components and characteristics of two- and three-wheel motor vehicles
         is necessary in order to enable the type-approval and component type-approval procedures covered by Council Directive 92/61/EEC
         of 30 June 1992 relating to the type-approval of two- or three-wheel vehicles to be implemented in respect of each type of
         the aforesaid vehicles’.
      
      11.      Chapter 7 of the Annex to Directive 97/24, entitled ‘Anti-tampering measures for two-wheel mopeds and motorcycles’, includes
         the following definitions in section 1:
      
      ‘1.      For the purposes of this Chapter:
      1.1.      “Anti-tampering measures for two-wheel mopeds and motorcycles” means a series of technical requirements and specifications
         the aim of which is to prevent, as far as possible, unauthorised modifications which may prejudice safety, in particular by
         increasing vehicle performance, and damage the environment.
      
      …
      1.3.1. Category A vehicles – mopeds. 
      …
      1.4.      “Unauthorised modification” means a modification which is not permitted by this Chapter’.
      12.      Chapter 7, section 2 of the Annex to Directive 97/24 includes, inter alia, general provisions regarding the interchangeability
         of non-identical parts between component-type-approved vehicles. Chapter 7, section 2.1.1.(b) states that the maximum design
         speed or the maximum net engine power of the relevant category may not be exceeded. In particular, for the low-performance
         mopeds as referred to in the Note in Annex I to Directive 92/61, the maximum design speed is 25 km/h.
      
      13.      Chapter 7, section 3 of the Annex to Directive 97/24 regarding specific requirements for vehicles in categories A and B provides
         that:
      
      ‘The requirements in this section are not mandatory unless a single requirement or combination of requirements proves necessary
         to impede tampering resulting in the vehicle’s maximum design speed increasing by more than 5 km/h in the case of category
         A vehicles … In no case may the maximum design speed or maximum net engine power of the relevant category be exceeded.’
      
      B –    National law
      14.      Article 1(5) of the Law of 21 June 1985 on the technical requirements with which any vehicle that is used for transport by
         land must comply, as well as its components and safety equipment (‘the Law on technical requirements’) (6) provides:
      
      ‘The manufacture, import, possession with a view to sale, offer for sale, sale, and distribution free of charge of equipment
         designed to increase the engine power and/or speed of mopeds is prohibited, as is the offer of assistance with or provision
         of advice on the installation of such equipment.’
      
      II –  Background to the proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
      15.      Mr Lahousse is the manager of the company Lavichy BVBA (referred to jointly as ‘the defendants’), the business objects of
         which are ‘the running of a bicycle shop and garage, including the import and export, purchase and sale, hire, maintenance
         and repair of all new and second-hand bicycles, mopeds …, accessories and spare parts’. The order for reference indicates
         that the defendants had in their possession and sold tuning-up equipment, that they allowed mopeds to be tuned up and, moreover,
         provided advice in that regard. 
      
      16.      Following an investigation, a coordinated search and seizure of evidence, the defendants were found guilty by the Politierechtbank
         (Local Criminal Court), Sint-Niklaas, of having contravened Article 1(5) of the Law on technical requirements, in that they
         made, imported, had in their possession with a view to sale, offered for sale, sold or distributed free of charge equipment
         designed to increase the engine power and/or speed of mopeds, and offered assistance in that regard.
      
      17.      The defendants appealed against that judgment before the referring court.
      
      18.      The referring court, taking the view that there was a potential contradiction between Article 1(5) of the Law on technical
         requirements and Directive 2002/24, decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a
         preliminary ruling:
      
      ‘Must Directive 2002/24, in particular Article 1(1)(d) thereof (according to which the directive does not apply to vehicles
         intended for use in competition, on roads or in off-road conditions), be interpreted as allowing the Member States to extend
         its scope so as to render it applicable to all traffic by land (that is to say, also to the use of two- or three-wheel motor
         vehicles off-road and/or on private land), without granting the exception in respect of vehicles intended for use in competition
         on roads (racing) or for vehicles in off-road conditions?’
      
      III –  The proceedings before the Court
      19.      The reference for a preliminary ruling was lodged at the Court Registry on 22 April 2009.
      
      20.      Written observations were submitted by Mr Lahousse, the Belgian Government, the United Kingdom Government and the European
         Commission. 
      
      21.      In a letter dated 17 May 2010, the Court Registrar asked the Belgian Government and the Commission to answer a question relating
         to Chapter 7 of the Annex to Directive 97/24, and those parties submitted their answers on 1 June 2010.
      
      IV –  General assessment 
      A –     Initial observations on the question referred for a preliminary ruling
      22.      By its question, the referring court is asking whether a Member State may extend the scope of Directive 2002/24 so as to render
         it applicable to vehicles which are expressly excluded from it. Extending the scope of Directive 2002/24 to vehicles intended
         for use in competition on roads or in off-road conditions would lead to those vehicles being regarded as coming under the
         harmonised type-approval procedure.
      
      23.      However, the national court does not specify whether the equipment or vehicles at issue in the main proceedings are intended
         for competition or for customers who wish to increase the engine power and/or speed of mopeds in order that they may travel
         on the road. However, this seems to me to be a specific question of fact which cannot affect the admissibility of the reference
         for a preliminary ruling. 
      
      24.      Moreover, the national court states that it has asked the Court for a ruling to clarify the concept of ‘transport by land’.
         However, this concept is peculiar to the Belgian Law on technical requirements, which it is not for the Court to interpret.
         I should point out that Directive 2002/24 applies only to vehicles intended to travel ‘on the road’ and to the components
         or separate technical units of such vehicles. 
      
      25.      Consequently, it is necessary to examine whether a law such as the one at issue in the main proceedings comes within the scope
         of Directive 2002/24, and if not, which of the rules of European Union law the Member State should observe. 
      
      26.      In addition, in the light of the Belgian Government’s line of argument that Article 1(5) of the Law on technical requirements
         was introduced in order to ensure better protection of users, thus responding to the dangers linked to increases in the speed
         and engine power of mopeds, reference must also be made to Chapter 7 of the Annex to Directive 97/24, which governs, inter
         alia, the issue of anti-tampering measures for mopeds. 
      
      27.      As regards the temporal aspect of the case referred to the Court, it is apparent from the order for reference that the charges
         relate to the period from 1 January 2002 to 7 December 2005 inclusive. 
      
      28.      In so far as that period predated the adoption of Directive 2002/24, it is common ground that Directive 92/61 was applicable
         to the facts in the main proceedings. Since the concepts relevant to this case have remained fundamentally the same in those
         two directives, I consider that the interpretation provided in relation to Directive 2002/24 applies mutatis mutandis to the interpretation of Directive 92/61. 
      
      B –    The provisions governing the two- or three-wheel vehicle sector 
      1.      Objectives and level of harmonisation of Directive 2002/24
      29.      Within the context of the adoption of measures intended to ensure the operation of the internal market, a series of directives
         governs the issue of the requirements which must be satisfied by the components and characteristics of two- or three-wheel
         motor vehicles. A framework directive (7) and several technical directives (8) have been adopted in that regard.
      
      30.      According to the eighth recital in the preamble to Directive 92/61, since the harmonised technical requirements applying to
         the various components and characteristics of the vehicles were brought together in separate directives, the monitoring of
         compliance with those requirements and recognition by each Member State of the checks carried out by other Member States has
         required the implementation of a Community approval procedure for each type of vehicle.
      
      31.      Directive 2002/24 is designed to harmonise the procedure for type-approval of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles covered by
         the Directive. It also applies to components and separate technical units complying with the technical requirements set out
         in the separate directives. Annex I to Directive 2002/24 contains an exhaustive list of the requirements applicable for the
         purpose of vehicle type-approval. Heading No 19 in Annex I refers to Directive 97/24, which covers anti-tampering measures
         for mopeds and motorcycles.
      
      32.      The purpose of the type-approval procedure for the vehicles coming within the scope of Directive 2002/24 is to ensure the
         proper functioning of the single market through the introduction of uniform requirements with a view to obtaining vehicle
         type-approval as well as the certification of its components and characteristics. (9)
      
      33.      The abovementioned procedure enables each Member State to confirm that each type of vehicle has undergone the checks provided
         for in the separate directives and has been issued with a type-approval certificate. It also enables manufacturers to prepare
         a certificate of conformity for all vehicles conforming to the type that has been approved. When a vehicle is accompanied
         by this certificate, it may be placed on the market, sold and registered for use throughout the European Union. 
      
      34.      Following the establishment of harmonised type-approval in the European Union, a citizen of the Union may buy a new vehicle
         in any Member State and, should the need arise, register it without individual approval in any other Member State. Only vehicles,
         components and separate technical units complying with the requirements of European Union law may be placed on the market
         and sold for the first time for use in the Member States.
      
      35.      A result of type-approval is that a Member State cannot prohibit the placing on the market, entry into service or use of vehicles
         and components complying with Directive 2002/24. Consequently, the type-approval procedure does not apply to single vehicles
         as referred to in this directive. (10)
      
      36.      Directive 92/61, now repealed, included an indication of the nature of the harmonisation required in the sector in question.
         According to the last recital in the preamble to Directive 92/61, road safety and environmental and consumer protection require
         design and manufacturing requirements based on high standards. Since those requirements were intended to ensure market unity,
         it was necessary for this directive to be based on total harmonisation. 
      
      37.      Since no similar indication was reproduced in Directive 2002/24, it is justified to raise the question of the extent of harmonisation
         provided for by Directive 2002/24. 
      
      38.      In that regard, I note that the proposal for a Directive amending Directive 92/61 expressly pointed out that the Community
         type-approval procedure for two- and three-wheel motor vehicles had been designed within a system of total harmonisation. (11) According to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee, the aim of adopting that proposal was to update and clarify
         Directive 92/61. (12)
      
      39.      In addition, I note that the proposal was based, inter alia, on the need to clarify the requirements, in particular as regards
         the length of validity of the national approvals, and to introduce new requirements on, for example, the numbering of type-approval
         certificates, special provisions for end-of-series vehicles and new technologies, following the example of the requirements
         already in force for other motor vehicles. (13)
      
      40.      Consequently, I find that Directive 2002/24 continues the effort towards exhaustive harmonisation with regard to the vehicles
         coming within its scope of application. On the other hand, it goes without saying that it does not harmonise exhaustively
         the legal framework applicable to all two- or three-wheel vehicles, given, inter alia, the exclusion of certain types of vehicles
         from its scope of application. (14)
      
      41.      Thus, when a vehicle, component or separate technical unit comes within the scope of Directive 2002/24, it should be examined
         solely in the light of that directive. Once a matter has been harmonised at European Union level, the national measures relating
         thereto must be assessed in the light of the provisions of that harmonising measure and not those of the Treaty. (15)
      
      42.      I do, however, consider that the Member States enjoy considerable leeway when adopting legislation concerning vehicles expressly
         excluded from the scope of Directive 2002/24, such as vehicles intended for use in competition or vehicles that are not intended
         to travel on the road. 
      
      2.      Scope of Directive 2002/24
      43.      Under Article 1 of Directive 2002/24, that directive applies to all two- or three-wheel vehicles, whether twin-wheeled or
         otherwise, intended to travel on the road, and to the components or separate technical units of such vehicles. 
      
      44.      The vehicles listed in Article 1(1)(a) to (h), which include vehicles intended for use in competition, on roads or in off-road
         conditions, are excluded from the scope of Directive 2002/24. Similarly, the general definition in Article 1 of Directive
         2002/24 excludes a contrario from the Directive’s scope vehicles which are not intended to travel on the road. 
      
      45.      In respect of components or separate technical units of vehicles considered not to come within the scope of Directive 2002/24,
         a distinction should be drawn between two scenarios. 
      
      46.      Firstly, Directive 2002/24 does not apply to components or units which are part of vehicles not covered by that directive.
         Secondly, however, if a component of a vehicle excluded from the scope of Directive 2002/24 is intended to be fitted to vehicles
         covered by that directive, such a component or separate technical unit does come within the scope of Directive 2002/24. 
      
      47.      The question therefore arises of how to interpret the concept of ‘intended use’, that is to say, whether the applicability
         of Directive 2002/24 may be contingent on the use to which the component in question may be put. 
      
      48.      In that regard, I consider that the concept of ‘intended use’ of a vehicle or a vehicle component must be understood in terms
         of the industrial purpose of that good. By ‘industrial purpose’, I mean the use envisaged by the manufacturer as a benchmark
         in the technical design of a vehicle, determining, for example, the technical standards with which the vehicle must comply.
         The intended use is therefore defined by the manufacturer during the process of design or manufacture. (16)
      
      49.      The opposite interpretation would lead to a paradoxical situation in which the legislation would have to take into account
         any possible, hypothetical use that a user is likely to make of a vehicle component or even of technical components which
         are not intended by the manufacturer for certain vehicles but have properties allowing for interchangeability. (17)
      
      50.      Consequently, the applicability of Directive 2002/24 cannot depend on a subjective element, whether on the use – or even the
         multiple uses – to which a component could be put or on the technical possibility of fitting a part to a vehicle other than
         the one for which the component is formally intended. 
      
      51.      Lastly, the exclusion of single vehicles from the scope of Directive 2002/24 seems to me particularly relevant for the purposes
         of the present proceedings. 
      
      52.      In that regard, I note that, in the context of this Opinion, the concept of ‘non-moped’ covers both a moped which previously
         complied with Directive 2002/24 but has been tampered with – for example, by being tuned up – so that it no longer complies
         with the requirements of that directive, and a two- or three-wheel vehicle which is presented as a moped but, from the outset,
         has not met the definition of a moped laid down in Directive 2002/24. 
      
      53.      In the light of the wording of Article 1(1) in fine of Directive 2002/24, the view may reasonably be taken that a tuned-up
         moped is not covered by the Directive’s provisions on type-approval and on free movement, firstly, because it is a non-moped
         and, secondly, because it is a single vehicle.
      
      54.      However, as Article 1 in fine of Directive 2002/24 shows, Member States granting type-approval of single vehicles are to accept
         any type-approval of components and separate technical units granted under that directive and not under the relevant national
         provisions.
      
      C –    Legislation providing for anti-tampering measures for vehicles
      1.      Preliminary observations
      55.      The entry into force of Directive 97/24 allowed the type-approval procedure to be applied in full. Therefore it is one of
         the separate directives for the purposes of the type-approval procedure established by Directive 2002/24. (18)
      
      56.      In that regard, it is important to note that the respective scopes of Directive 2002/24 and Directive 97/24 overlap but are
         not identical. 
      
      57.      Article 1 of Directive 97/24 provides that that directive is to apply to the components listed in that article, for all types
         of vehicles as defined in Article 1 of Directive 92/61. The latter provision was reproduced in almost identical terms in Directive
         2002/24, which merely added one new exclusion category relating to the approval of single vehicles. (19)
      
      2.      Anti-tampering measures in secondary legislation 
      58.      The issue of anti-tampering measures for vehicles is an integral part of the legislation relating to mopeds and motorcycles.
         
      
      59.      The Explanatory Memorandum to Directive 97/24 shows that the measures put forward in order to restrict to a minimum the scope
         for users to tamper with mopeds and motorcycles in order to boost their performance responds to a need which is being felt
         more and more throughout the Member States as a result of the increasing spread of this phenomenon, which undermines road
         safety. It is necessary, with regard to mopeds, to put a stop to young users altering the engine characteristics of such vehicles
         in order to increase their performance to such a level that – in certain cases – this outstrips the performance of, in particular,
         the vehicle’s braking system, tyres and lighting and light-signalling devices.
      
      60.      In addition, it is apparent from recital 11 in the preamble to Directive 97/24 that restrictions on tampering with certain
         types of two- or three-wheel vehicle are based on safety or environmental requirements, and that, if they are not to prove
         an obstacle to owner servicing and maintenance, such restrictions should be strictly limited to tampering which significantly
         modifies the vehicle’s performance and pollutant and noise emissions.
      
      61.      Under Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2002/24, mopeds are two-wheel or three-wheel vehicles with a maximum design speed of not
         more than 45 km/h. They are characterised by their cylinder capacity and power, which differ according to the number of wheels.
         
      
      62.      Tuning up a moped consists of increasing various aspects of its performance, in particular its engine power. However, the
         moped’s technical braking and road-holding properties are not adapted to such a scenario, which can increase the risk of an
         accident. 
      
      63.      Reports on anti-tampering measures for two- or three-wheel vehicles show that these issues are determined by social and psychological
         factors, linked to road safety and environmental protection. (20)
      
      64.      Chapter 7 of the Annex to Directive 97/24 governs anti-tampering measures for two-wheel mopeds and motorcycles. The general
         provisions of Chapter 7 relate mainly to the issue of interchangeability of non-identical parts between component-type-approved
         vehicles. (21)
      
      65.      It is important to note that Chapter 7 of the Annex to Directive 97/24 provides that in no case may the maximum design speed
         or the maximum net engine power of the relevant category be exceeded. That confirms that the ‘industrial purpose’ approach
         proposed above in regard to Directive 2002/24 also applies in that context.
      
      66.      It is also clear from Chapter 7 that the specific requirements in Directive 97/24 are mandatory where a single requirement
         or combination of requirements proves necessary in order to prevent tampering resulting in an increase in the vehicle’s speed
         or power. 
      
      67.      Under Annex I to Directive 2002/24, which establishes the exhaustive list of the requirements applicable for the purpose of
         vehicle type-approval, information relating to anti-tampering measures is among the data whose conformity with requirements
         laid down in Community legislation has to be checked. Under Annex II to Directive 2002/24, the information to be supplied
         on the vehicle to be type-approved, with regard to existing system, separate technical unit or component approvals, includes
         information relating to anti-tampering measures for the vehicles in question.
      
      68.      At the national level, anti-tampering legislation for mopeds is one of a number of measures intended to ensure road safety,
         and is found in several Member States of the European Union. (22) The practice of tuning-up is monitored or measures are taken to counter it because of the great risks and harm it entails
         both for the driver, putting his life in danger due to travel at speeds for which the vehicle is not designed, and for other
         road users. 
      
      D –    The legal consequences of tampering with a vehicle 
      69.      The effects of tampering can change a moped into a ‘non-moped’, that is to say, into a vehicle which does not meet the definition
         of a moped set out in Directive 2002/24. Tampering can convert a moped intended to travel normally on the road into a vehicle
         for competition on roads or in off-road conditions. 
      
      70.      In the system provided for by Directive 2002/24, applications for type-approval shall, under Article 3 of that directive,
         be submitted by the manufacturer to the approval authority of a Member State so that vehicles can enjoy free movement within
         the internal market. That article provides that applications for a given type of vehicle, system, separate technical unit
         or component may be submitted to one Member State only. Under Article 9(1) of Directive 2002/24, it is the manufacturer who
         is responsible for the manufacture of each vehicle or the production of each system, separate technical unit or component
         in compliance with the approved type. (23)
      
      71.      Accordingly, a vehicle does not come within the scope of Directive 2002/24 simply because it fulfils the conditions provided
         for by Article 1 of that Directive. (24) That directive is intended to establish a system of vehicle type-approval and mutual recognition, as regards the conformity
         of vehicles and their components produced according to the requirements of Directive 2002/24 and of the separate directives.
         Free movement established through total harmonisation is applicable only to vehicles whose ‘industrial purpose’, as it has
         been defined and is guaranteed by the manufacturer, is to meet the requirements of European Union law. 
      
      72.      Consequently, when a tuned-up moped is not covered by any of the definitions given by Directive 2002/24, it is a ‘non-moped’
         and therefore does not qualify for the system created by Directive 2002/24, even though it comes within the material scope
         of that directive. The same is true for its components or separate technical units, with the exception of those intended to
         be fitted to vehicles governed by Directive 2002/24.
      
      73.       While I recognise that vehicles intended for use in competition have, as a category, been excluded from the scope of Directive
         2002/24, nevertheless I must point out that the concept of ‘intended use’, viewed in terms of the suggested industrial purpose,
         presumes that a vehicle has been designed by the manufacturer as suitable to take part in competitions. 
      
      74.      When a moped is tampered with using a tuning kit, it is converted into a single vehicle, albeit one that will actually be
         able to take part in competitions. Consequently, on the one hand, a tuned-up vehicle cannot be regarded as ‘intended for use
         in competition’, since its purpose was defined differently by the manufacturer. Before being tuned up, it was not intended
         for use in competition. On the other hand, after it has been tuned up, the vehicle will be a single vehicle which does not
         qualify for type-approval. 
      
      75.      If, from the industrial point of view, a tuning kit is not intended for dual use, (25) I conclude that it is intended either to increase the power of mopeds intended for use in competition or to convert mopeds
         into ‘non-mopeds’. In both cases, the equipment is outside the system of type-approval and mutual recognition provided for
         by Directive 2002/24, since those tuning kits are not intended to be fitted to vehicles governed by Directive 2002/24.
      
      76.      Lastly, Directive 2002/24 does not generally apply to single vehicles; therefore a tuning kit which is used to tamper with
         a moped cannot come within the scope of Directive 2002/24 and does not qualify for the system of mutual recognition established
         by that directive. 
      
      V –  Extending the scope of Directive 2002/24
      77.      By its question, the national court is essentially asking whether it is permissible for a Member State to extend the scope
         of Directive 2002/24, in particular to vehicles mentioned in Article 1(1)(d) of the directive, namely those intended for use
         in competition, on roads or in off-road conditions. In so doing, the Member State would, as regards those vehicles, be extending
         the scope of Directive 2002/24, which relates to travel on the road, to all traffic by land.
      
      78.      I must admit that the scope of the question is not clear to me. It could relate to the application of the concept of ‘moped’
         as defined under Directive 2002/24 and of the resulting technical requirements for vehicles intended for use in competition.
         The question could also be interpreted as meaning that the referring court is asking whether a Member State can unilaterally
         extend the system of type-approval and mutual recognition created by Directive 2002/24 to vehicles that do not fall under
         its scope.
      
      79.      According to the Commission, Directive 2002/24, in particular Article 1(1)(d) thereof, must be interpreted as allowing Member
         States to extend its scope to vehicles intended for use in competition, on roads or in off-road conditions.
      
      80.      In the opinion of the United Kingdom Government, Member States are entitled to lay down technical requirements in respect
         of the vehicles referred to in Article 1(1)(a) to (h) so long as those requirements comply with Community law, including Article
         28 EC and other provisions protecting the free movement of goods such as Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 (26) and Directive 98/34/EC. (27)
      
      81.      Restrictions on the legal effects of a directive may take the form of an exception or an exemption. This is a question of
         not applying a rule laid down by the directive to a given case, even though the latter would be covered by that rule. 
      
      82.      In the present case, like the United Kingdom Government, I consider that Article 1(1)(d) of Directive 2002/24 is not an exception
         to the requirements of that directive. 
      
      83.      That article does not provide that Member States must exempt competition and off-road vehicles from the requirements contained
         in the directive. Exclusion from the scope of the directive leaves Member States the power to legislate in the area in question,
         always in accordance with the rules of the Treaty, of course.
      
      84.      Directive 2002/24 is designed to establish a procedure for type-approval of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles, of components
         and of separate technical units produced in conformity with the technical requirements set out in separate directives. The
         legal consequence of that procedure is the free movement of those goods, based on the obligation of mutual recognition of
         conformity with the technical requirements, which are totally harmonised. As indicated in Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/24,
         only vehicles, separate technical units or components complying with that directive qualify for the system established by
         it. 
      
      85.      Nevertheless I note that, in this instance, the issue of tuning up mopeds remains at the heart of the case pending before
         the referring court. 
      
      86.      As I have already explained above with regard to anti-tampering measures for mopeds, the provisions of Directive 2002/24 should
         be read together with Chapter 7 of the Annex to Directive 97/24. 
      
      87.      Consequently, since vehicles and components are covered by Directive 2002/24, the provisions relating to anti-tampering measures
         in Directive 97/24 are applicable. Yet this is generally not the case for vehicles intended for use in competition. 
      
      88.      In that regard, it is important to note that extending the scope of Directive 2002/24 implies extending the application of
         the type-approval procedure. The question of extending anti-tampering measures for vehicles, which seems to be at the heart
         of the referring court’s concerns, is a separate issue.
      
      89.      However, when it comes to rendering the type-approval procedure applicable to vehicles intended for use in competition, on
         roads or in off-road conditions, I consider that the Member State is empowered to take that action, subject to compliance
         with the objective of Directive 2002/24. 
      
      90.      As Article 2(7) of Directive 2002/24 shows, the type-approval procedure is a measure whereby a Member State certifies that
         a type of vehicle, system, separate technical unit or component satisfies the technical requirements set out in that directive
         or the separate directives and the checks on the correctness of the manufacturer’s data, as provided for in the exhaustive
         list set out in Annex I to that directive. (28)
      
      91.      Moreover, under Article 6 of the same directive, the competent authority in each Member State is to forward to those of the
         other Member States a copy of the type-approval certificate, together with the annexes for each type of vehicle that they
         type-approve or refuse to type-approve. In addition, under Article 4(6) of that directive, if a Member State refuses, for
         reasons connected with serious risks to road safety, to grant type-approval to a vehicle, system, separate technical unit
         or component, it must inform the other Member States and the Commission thereof. 
      
      92.      Given the risk of confusion and legal uncertainty resulting from the application of that procedure to vehicles falling outside
         the scope of Directive 2002/24, I consider that the Member State concerned must indicate unequivocally that the certificate
         involved is not a type-approval certificate as provided for by Directive 2002/24 and that it does not produce the legal effects
         provided for by that directive. In that regard, I wish to point out that Article 15(3) of that directive requires Member States
         to avoid any confusion likely to arise from the individual exemptions provided for by that article. The same principle must
         apply to any extension of the scope of type-approval. 
      
      93.      If the measures adopted by the Member State are covered by Directive 2002/24, the Member State is in a system of interdependence
         which is based on trust and collaboration between the competent national authorities and on the technical specifications established
         in the separate directives. (29)
      
      94.      Consequently, it seems to me that the application of the type-approval procedure by a Member State to a type of vehicle falling
         outside the scope of Directive 2002/24 can be legally envisaged only on condition that it complies with the obligation of
         transparency inherent in both the type-approval procedure and the general principle of legal certainty. The Member State may
         therefore apply the directive to situations which do not fall within its scope as a national standard, with the proviso that
         no impression must be given that the legal effects of the national standard at issue have been extended to European Union
         level.
      
      95.      Lastly, there is nothing to prevent a Member State drawing inspiration from the rules laid down in Directive 2002/24 in order
         to regulate the situation of vehicles and components which are excluded from the scope of the directive, subject to compliance
         with the rules of the Treaty.
      
      VI –  Analysis of the wording of the national legislation in the light of European Union law
      96.      In the light of the objective of the Law on technical requirements, the Court put the following question to the Belgian Government
         and to the Commission: 
      
      ‘Does Article 1(5) of the Law of 21 June 1985 transpose, and to what extent, the provisions of Chapter 7 of the Annex to Directive
         97/24, entitled “Anti-tampering measures for two-wheel mopeds and motorcycles”, in the version applicable to the facts in
         the main proceedings?’
      
      97.      In its answer, the Belgian Government observed that the provisions of Chapter 7 of the Annex to Directive 97/24 were incorporated
         into the Royal Decree of 8 November 1998. (30) Article 1(5) of the Law on technical requirements, on the other hand, came into force before then – to be precise, on 1 July
         1995. However, since the scope of the Law on technical requirements is much broader, Article 1(5) has remained in force. 
      
      98.      According to the Commission, Article 1(5) of the Law on technical requirements cannot be viewed as a transposition of Directive
         97/24. 
      
      99.      As to the relationship between Directive 2002/24 and the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, the Belgian Government,
         referring to Article 15 of Directive 2002/24, submits that the prohibition laid down in Article 1(5) of the Law on technical
         requirements was imposed in order to ensure better protection of users. It suggests that the Court regard Article 1(5) of
         the Law on technical requirements as consistent with Directive 2002/24. 
      
      100. The Belgian Government adds that vehicles which, after manufacture, are equipped by the seller, buyer or user with components
         designed to increase the engine power and/or speed are often not (or no longer) suited to the modifications made, with the
         result that they represent a potential danger to the user.
      
      101. In that regard, I observe, firstly, that Article 1(5) of the Law on technical requirements prohibits the manufacture, import,
         possession and sale of all equipment making it possible to increase the engine power and/or speed of mopeds, as well as the
         offer of assistance with or provision of advice on the installation of such equipment.
      
      102. The objective of Article 1(5) of the Law on technical requirements appears to be prohibit tampering with the nature of mopeds
         by prohibiting the marketing and use of parts which can be used for that purpose. (31) From this point of view, the aim of this legislation coincides with the scope of Directive 2002/24. 
      
      103. Only a vehicle which fulfils the criteria set out in Article 1(2) of Directive 2002/24 is considered to be a moped within
         the meaning of that directive. 
      
      104. In prohibiting all equipment which is ‘designed to’ (32) increase the power or speed of mopeds, the Belgian legislation appears to be to the same effect as Directive 2002/24, which,
         in my view, uses the industrial purpose to determine the ‘intended use’ of a vehicle, a component or a separate technical
         unit. 
      
      105. However, I also note that the Law on technical requirements governs a much broader set of issues than that covered by Directive
         2002/24. The applicability of that directive is limited by the requirement that the vehicle be ‘intended to travel on the
         road’. As both the referring court and the Belgian Government have indicated, the Law on technical requirements governs the
         requirements with which any vehicle that is used for transport by land must comply, and the concept of transport by land encompasses
         much more than the concept of road transport. 
      
      106. Secondly, as regards anti-tampering measures for mopeds, I note the Belgian Government’s argument that the measures provided
         for in Chapter 7 of the Annex to Directive 97/24 are twofold. Chapter 7 includes general provisions on the interchangeability
         of non-identical parts between component-type-approved vehicles (sections 2.1 to 2.4) and also imposes specific requirements
         on vehicle manufacturers to prevent tampering with the maximum speed of those vehicles by introducing a series of design requirements
         (sections 3.1 to 3.10).
      
      107. Yet Directive 97/24 does not provide for measures on the installation of parts designed to increase the engine power or speed
         and do not come from the original manufacturer, and this differs from the objective seemingly pursued by the Law on technical
         requirements. Moreover, according to the Belgian Government, Directive 97/24 in part duplicates Article 1(5) of the Law on
         technical requirements. 
      
      108. Even though Directive 97/24 was transposed after the Law on technical requirements was adopted, I consider that Article 1(5)
         of that law seems to meet the objective pursued by Chapter 7 of the Annex to Directive 97/24 concerning measures designed
         to restrict tampering with mopeds, which come under Directive 2002/24. 
      
      109. It follows that, in so far as the scope of the Law on technical requirements coincides with the scope of Chapter 7 of the
         Annex to Directive 97/24 and both relate to vehicles coming under Directive 2002/24, such as mopeds, those directives do not
         preclude the legislation at issue. 
      
      110. Consequently, the prohibition on marketing equipment ‘designed’ to increase the power or speed of mopeds which falls within
         the restrictions laid down in Chapter 7 of the Annex to Directive 97/24 – namely, a prohibition limited to tampering which
         significantly modifies the vehicle’s performance and pollutant and noise emissions – is compatible with that directive. I
         should add that the law at issue does not require that the modifications be made to vehicles qualifying for European Union
         technical harmonisation. On the contrary, it prohibits tampering intended to modify the design of a vehicle as designed by
         the manufacturer. The law therefore complies with the requirement laid down in Article 15(4) of Directive 2002/24 that conditions
         for use imposed by the Member States cannot entail modification to vehicles. 
      
      111. However, since the prohibition laid down by the Law on technical requirements lies to a great extent outside the scope of
         Directive 2002/24 and Directive 97/24, it is appropriate to provide the national court with some guidance under Articles 28
         EC and 30 EC (now Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU), whilst addressing the issue of vehicles intended for use in competition.
         
      
      112. As the Commission has stated, the directives at issue do not totally harmonise the two- or three-wheel vehicle sector, since
         they do not apply to all two- or three-wheel vehicles, in particular, not to vehicles intended for use in competition.
      
      113. In that regard, it must be observed that, in proceedings under Article 234 EC, which is based on a clear separation of functions
         between the national courts and the Court of Justice, any assessment of the facts in the case is a matter for the national
         court. However, in order to give the national court a useful answer, the Court may, in a spirit of cooperation with the national
         court, provide it with all the guidance that it deems necessary. (33)
      
      114. As I have already indicated, subject to compliance with the provisions of the Treaty, the Member States enjoy considerable
         leeway as regards legislation on vehicles intended for use in competition, which are expressly excluded from the scope of
         Directive 2002/24. 
      
      115. In addition, I think that European Union law leaves the Member States wide discretion to determine whether or not to permit
         and, where relevant, in what conditions, the organisation of moped and/or motorcycle competitions. It is common knowledge
         that even perfectly organised motor-vehicle competitions seriously endanger the life and health of participants, notably in
         comparison with any other sport. 
      
      116. The United Kingdom Government points out that, since vehicles intended for competition or for use in off-road conditions fall
         outside the scope of Directive 2002/24, it follows that that directive does not require Member States to enact any legislation
         in respect of those vehicles. 
      
      117. According to the United Kingdom Government, the Member States are entitled to lay down technical requirements in respect of
         the vehicles referred to in Article 1(1)(a) to (h) of Directive 2002/24, so long as those requirements comply with European
         Union law, including, in particular, Article 28 EC. 
      
      118. The documents in the present case show that the prohibition at issue is equally applicable to domestic goods and to goods
         imported from other Member States. 
      
      119. Moreover, it cannot be disputed that, by generally and absolutely prohibiting, throughout Belgium, the manufacture, import,
         possession, offer for sale, sale, and distribution of equipment designed to increase the engine power and/or speed of mopeds,
         the national legislation at issue may impede the free movement of goods. 
      
      120. However, such a prohibition may be justified in the light of Article 30 EC or in order to meet imperative requirements as
         referred to in the case-law, subject to the proviso that the national legislation at issue must be appropriate for securing
         the attainment of the objective pursued and not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it. (34)
      
      121. In my view, the secondary legislation of the European Union holds that tuning up mopeds is incompatible with road safety,
         the protection of users and environmental protection. It is apparent from the national legislation at issue that equipment
         used to tune up mopeds intended to travel on the road cannot enjoy free movement within the internal market. Consequently,
         the Member States may restrict the placing on the market, sale, entry into service or use of kits for tuning up mopeds intended
         for use in competition, if those kits are technically interchangeable with those for tuning up mopeds intended to travel on
         the road. 
      
      122. In the event that the tuning kits do not meet that interchangeability condition and if the national rules at issue have had
         the effect of preventing users of components or separate technical units from using them in accordance with their intended
         use or have had the effect of severely limiting their use, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, such rules impede
         the access of those goods to the domestic market in question and therefore, subject to justification under Article 30 EC or
         imperative requirements in the public interest, constitute a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions
         on imports, which is prohibited by Article 28 EC. 
      
      123. In that regard, I would point out that the free movement of goods, as far as motor vehicles and their components within the
         European Union are concerned, has not been achieved by direct application of Treaty articles, but following a long process
         of harmonising technical legislation, in the light of the need to protect the life and health of users of such goods, as well
         as of road safety and the environment. European integration in this matter is therefore based on the premiss that any barriers
         to trade within the Community can be justified under Article 30 EC. (35) Consequently, the factors which justified the adoption of the European Union’s secondary legislation in the motor vehicle
         sector seem to me to justify a general prohibition, such as that provided for by the Law on technical requirements, even where
         it applies to a kit for tuning up mopeds allegedly intended for use in competition.
      
      VII –  Conclusion
      124. I propose that the Court answer the question referred by the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Dendermonde as follows:
      
      (1)      A Member State may apply Directive 2002/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 March 2002 relating to the
         type-approval of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles and repealing Council Directive 92/61/EEC or national rules with similar
         content, in compliance with the rules of the EC Treaty, in order to govern vehicles and components which are excluded from
         the scope of that directive, both with regard to the vehicle type-approval procedure and with regard to the technical requirements
         applicable to vehicles intended to travel off-road and those intended for use in competition on roads or in off-road conditions,
         subject to compliance with the obligation for transparency integral to both the type-approval procedure and the general principle
         of legal certainty. 
      
      (2)      In so far as a national law, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, goes beyond the anti-tampering measures for
         mopeds provided for by Directive 97/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1997 on certain components
         and characteristics of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles, it comes within the scope of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC. It constitutes
         a restriction which is justified in the light of those articles even if it applies to equipment designed to increase the engine
         power and/or speed of mopeds intended for use in competition on roads or in off-road conditions.
      
      1 –	Original language: French.
      
      2 –	Since the dispute in the main proceedings concerns the application of a national law adopted in 1985, references to the
         provisions of the EC Treaty follow the numbering applicable before the entry into force of the Treaty on the Functioning of
         the European Union (‘TFEU’).
      
      3 –	OJ 2002 L 124, p. 1.
      
      4 –	OJ 1992 L 225, p. 72.
      
      5 –	OJ 1997 L 226, p. 1.
      
      6 –	Moniteur belge of 13 August 1985, p. 11647.
      
      7 –	Directive 92/61, repealed by Directive 2002/24.
      
      8 –	Between 1992 and 2009, 37 directives governing two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles were adopted. See the web
         site of the European Commission’s Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/documents/directives/motorbikes/index_en.htm.
      
      9 –	Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Council Directive 92/61/EEC relating to the type-approval
            of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles, COM(1999) 276 final (OJ 1999 C 307 E, p. 1). 
      
      10 –	It is true that Directive 2002/24 does not define the concept of ‘single vehicle’. However, in the light of the aim and
         content of that directive, the concept of ‘single vehicle’ should be interpreted as contrasting with vehicles covered by the
         type-approval procedure and referring to vehicles whose characteristics do not allow them to be included in the type-approval
         system provided for by the directive. 
      
      11 –	COM(1999) 276 final.
      
      12 –	Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending
         Council Directive 92/61/EEC relating to the type-approval of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles’ (OJ 1999 C 368, p. 1).
      13 –	See recital 4 in the preamble to Directive 2002/24.
      
      14 –	See Article 15(4) of Directive 2002/24, which shows that the conditions of use of the vehicles in question are not harmonised.
         
      
      15 –	See Case 227/82 van Bennekom [1983] ECR 3883, paragraph 35; Case C‑150/88 Eau de Cologne & Parfümerie‑Fabrik 4711 [1989] ECR 3891, paragraph 28; Case C‑37/92 Vanacker and Lesage [1993] ECR I‑4947, paragraph 9; Case C-324/99 DaimlerChrysler [2001] ECR I‑9897, paragraph 32; Joined Cases C-211/03, C‑299/03 and C‑316/03 to C-318/03 HLH Warenvertriebs and Orthica [2005] ECR I‑5141, paragraphs 58 and 59; and Case C-257/06 Roby Profumi [2008] ECR I‑189, paragraph 14.
      
      16 –	Under the technical harmonisation system, manufacturers may obtain approval for a vehicle type in one Member State provided
         it meets the harmonised technical requirements, and then market it throughout the EU with no need for further tests or checks.
         Registration must be granted upon simple presentation of a European certificate of conformity. See: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/technical-harmonisation/index_en.htm.
      
      17 –	For example, two-stroke engine parts can be used on light machinery, such as gardening machines, or on boats.
      
      18 –	Directive 97/24 was adopted in order to enable the implementation of Directive 92/61. See recital 3 in the preamble to
         Directive 2002/24.
      
      19 –	See COM(1999) 276 final.
      
      20 –	‘Study on anti-tampering devices relating to two- or three-wheeled motor vehicles’, by order of the Commission, Contract
         No FIF 20020691, Final Report, 18 December 2003, p. 31.
      
      21 –	See Chapter 7, section 2.1.1. of Directive 97/24.
      
      22 –	As regards the French Republic, for example, see Article L. 321‑1 of the Code de la route (Highway Code). French law provides
         for a road safety certificate in order to train young moped drivers in the essential rules of road traffic safety: see Colin,
         F., ‘Le brevet de sécurité routière’, Droit Administratif, 2006, No 8. In Finland, it is an offence for a tuned-up moped to travel on the road (see Article 96(I)(5) of the Ajoneuvolaki
         (Law on vehicles)). In addition, the owner must pay a higher vehicle tax and higher mandatory insurance premiums on a light
         motorcycle which has been put on the road without being registered. 
      
      23 –	Under Article 8 of Directive 2002/24, any vehicle produced in conformity with the type which has been type-approved is
         to bear a type-approval mark composed in accordance with section 1, section 3 and section 4 of the type-approval number, set
         out in Annex V, Part A, and any separate technical unit and any component produced in conformity with the type having been
         type-approved shall include, if the relevant separate directive so provides, a type-approval mark which meets the requirements
         set out in Annex V, Part B.
      
      24 –	Thus, for example, a vehicle that would fully meet all the technical requirements laid down by European Union law does
         not qualify for the system created by Directive 2002/24 if it has not been submitted for the prescribed type-approval.
      
      25 –	If the same tuning kit is intended for use with mopeds and, for example, with light motorcycles, then it obviously comes
         within the scope of Directive 2002/24. However, the provisions of Chapter 7 of the Annex to Directive 97/24 seem to be intended
         to prevent such a scenario from occurring. 
      
      26 –		Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 laying down procedures relating
         to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State and repealing
         Decision No 3052/95/EC (OJ 2008 L 218, p. 21).
      
      27 –		Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision
         of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).
      
      28 –	Under Article 4 of Directive 2002/24, each Member State is to grant type-approval to all types of vehicle, or component
         type-approval to separate technical units or components, if they meet the following conditions. Firstly, the type of vehicle
         must meet the technical requirements of the separate directives and be as described by the manufacturer in accordance with
         the data provided for in the exhaustive list set out in Annex I to the directive. Secondly, the system (brakes, emission control
         equipment, etc.), the separate technical unit (a device such as an exhaust silencer) or the component (a device such as a
         lamp) must meet the technical requirements of the relevant separate directive and be as described by the manufacturer in accordance
         with the data provided for in the exhaustive list set out in Annex I to Directive 2002/24.
      
      29 –	See, in that regard, Case C-470/03 AGM-COS.MET [2007] ECR I-2749, paragraphs 61 to 64, concerning Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22
         June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery (OJ 1998 L 207, p. 1). In addition,
         the ‘E’ marking indicates that a product has been type-approved to travel on roads open to traffic. That marking is followed
         by a number indicating the State which has type-approved the product. Type-approval is generally linked to a European standard
         specific to the product in question.
      
      30 –	Arrêté royal du 8 novembre 1998 modifiant l’arrêté royal du 4 août 1996 portant exécution des directives des Communautés
         européennes relatives à la réception des véhicules à moteur à deux ou trois roues, leurs composants et entités techniques
         ainsi que leurs accessoires de sécurité (Decree amending the Royal Decree of 4 August 1996 implementing the European Community
         directives relating to type-approval of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles, their components, separate technical units and
         safety equipment).
      
      31 –	It seems to me that the possibility of a prohibition on the provision of assistance with or advice on tuning-up is not
         covered by the reference for a preliminary ruling. 
      
      32 –	And not ‘whose effect is to’.
      
      33 –	See, inter alia, Case C‑433/05 Sandström [2010] ECR I-0000, paragraph 35.
      
      34 –	See Case C‑110/05 Commission v Italy [2009] ECR I-519, paragraph 59.
      
      35 –	See the second and fourth recitals in the preamble to Directive 92/61, now repealed.