News: ‘Twist and go’ type approval guidance emerges

shemozzle999

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 28, 2009
2,826
686
EU 168/2013 was made under the Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters ***I see:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-412

in them it states:

– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0748) and to the impact assessment carried out by the Commission (SEC(2010)1547),

In the above SEC(2010)1547, this document contains the requirements for consideration :

1.6.Respect of Fundamental Rights

1.6.1.Right to an effective remedy, Article 47 subparagraph 1 According to Article 47 subparagraph 1

see the full document here:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52010SC1547&from=EN
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: flecc

shemozzle999

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 28, 2009
2,826
686
I suspect other EU member state local laws may also be potentially in breech of the Fundamental Rights test. Maybe they should also challenge the validity of EU168/2013 Article 2 2(h).
 
Last edited:

Croxden

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 26, 2013
2,134
1,384
North Staffs
I suspect other EU member state local laws may also be potentially in breech of the Fundamental Rights test. Maybe they should also challenge the validity of EU168/2013.
There no emoji for duplication.
 

shemozzle999

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 28, 2009
2,826
686
EU 168/2013 was made under the Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters ***I see:

**http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-412

in them it states:

– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0748) and to the impact assessment carried out by the Commission (SEC(2010)1547),

In the above SEC(2010)1547, this document contains the requirements for consideration :

1.6.Respect of Fundamental Rights

1.6.1.Right to an effective remedy, Article 47 subparagraph 1 According to Article 47 subparagraph 1

see the full document here:

**http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52010SC1547&from=EN
Sorry, does not apply to EU 168/2013 please ignore all of this post #81.

This applies to item 6.1 and not 6.13 being considered by the EP on 20/11/12.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: flecc

OldBob1

Esteemed Pedelecer
Oct 11, 2012
355
117
Staffordshire
What a FARCE the two year old Red bike I can ride but the new Blue bike is now breaking the law.
Are we paying for idiots to run us?
 

shemozzle999

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 28, 2009
2,826
686
Might have found a means of allowing UK EAPC law to stiil be applied.

In this document it refers to the Legal Basis as being article 114.

http://www.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/dossier/dossier.do?code=COD&year=2010&number=0271&appLng=EN

In Article114 it allows Memeber State objections up to 6 months or a further 6 months:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E114:en:HTML

it says:

Article 114

(ex Article 95 TEC)

1. Save where otherwise provided in the Treaties, the following provisions shall apply for the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 26. The European Parliament and the Council shall, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, adopt the measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market.

2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to fiscal provisions, to those relating to the free movement of persons nor to those relating to the rights and interests of employed persons.

3. The Commission, in its proposals envisaged in paragraph 1 concerning health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection, will take as a base a high level of protection, taking account in particular of any new development based on scientific facts. Within their respective powers, the European Parliament and the Council will also seek to achieve this objective.

4. If, after the adoption of a harmonisation measure by the European Parliament and the Council, by the Council or by the Commission, a Member State deems it necessary to maintain national provisions on grounds of major needs referred to in Article 36, or relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment, it shall notify the Commission of these provisions as well as the grounds for maintaining them.

5. Moreover, without prejudice to paragraph 4, if, after the adoption of a harmonisation measure by the European Parliament and the Council, by the Council or by the Commission, a Member State deems it necessary to introduce national provisions based on new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment on grounds of a problem specific to that Member State arising after the adoption of the harmonisation measure, it shall notify the Commission of the envisaged provisions as well as the grounds for introducing them.

6. The Commission shall, within six months of the notifications as referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5, approve or reject the national provisions involved after having verified whether or not they are a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States and whether or not they shall constitute an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market.

In the absence of a decision by the Commission within this period the national provisions referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 shall be deemed to have been approved.

When justified by the complexity of the matter and in the absence of danger for human health, the Commission may notify the Member State concerned that the period referred to in this paragraph may be extended for a further period of up to six months.

7. When, pursuant to paragraph 6, a Member State is authorised to maintain or introduce national provisions derogating from a harmonisation measure, the Commission shall immediately examine whether to propose an adaptation to that measure.

8. When a Member State raises a specific problem on public health in a field which has been the subject of prior harmonisation measures, it shall bring it to the attention of the Commission which shall immediately examine whether to propose appropriate measures to the Council.

9. By way of derogation from the procedure laid down in Articles 258 and 259, the Commission and any Member State may bring the matter directly before the Court of Justice of the European Union if it considers that another Member State is making improper use of the powers provided for in this Article.

10. The harmonisation measures referred to above shall, in appropriate cases, include a safeguard clause authorising the Member States to take, for one or more of the non-economic reasons referred to in Article 36, provisional measures subject to a Union control procedure.
 
Last edited:

shemozzle999

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 28, 2009
2,826
686
It maybe a possible challenge under item 5 above as the former UK EAPC law which met the Fundamental Rights provisions had to be changed (harmonized) to meet the requirements of EU168/2013 exemption Article2 (2h) i.e. impose the EPAC definition, but the exemption puts the new UK law under question as to whether it infringes Fundamental Rights provisions due to the restriction of use.

I can't see another way around the problem. I feel it can only be settled by bringing forth a legal challenge to test the strength of EU168/2013.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,216
30,617
Article2 (2h)
It maybe a possible challenge under item 5 above as the former UK EAPC law which met the Fundamental Rights provisions had to be changed (harmonized) to meet the requirements of EU168/2013 exemption Article2 (2h) i.e. impose the EPAC definition, but the exemption puts the new UK law under question as to whether it infringes Fundamental Rights provisions due to the restriction of use.

I can't see another way around the problem. I feel it can only be settled by bringing forth a legal challenge to test the strength of EU168/2013.
That does look like a possibility. The only concern I have is this wording:

new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment

The rights of the disabled or those of limited ability aren't directly related to either the environment in the normal sense, or to the working environment in a pedelec context.

I'm not sure if and how item 5 can be legally stretched for our purposes.

Challenging exemption item Article2 (2h) of 168/2013 is a tall order, it having been in place in different acts for so many years without challenge from any other member country.
.
 
Last edited:

shemozzle999

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 28, 2009
2,826
686
The good thing is the Commission does have an option to decline making a decision on a challenge under item 6 and can just let it lapse into agreement after 6 months without further legal involvement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flecc

shemozzle999

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 28, 2009
2,826
686
I just checked the EPAC harmonization amendment 24/2015 and it does mention 168/2013 but only in reference to the power requirements, type approval is only mentioned in the guidance note from the DfT, it is not part of the law?

If this is the case then a challenge could be made under item 4, retaining the existing EPAC law as it stands and challenging on the basis that applying EU168/2013 Article 2, 2(h) it imposes fundamental rights restrictions on EU citizens in the UK member state.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,216
30,617
I just checked the EPAC harmonization amendment 24/2015 and it does mention 168/2013 but only in reference to the power requirements, type approval is only mentioned in the guidance note from the DfT, it is not part of the law?
My understanding is that type approval is legally required on all motor vehicles used within the EU, unless specifically exempted by the appropriate type approval regulation.

In this case it's 168/2013, and that details in item 1 on page 1 that type approval is a Free Market requirement, an absolute in the EU. There's further information on the requirement in items 2 to 29.

This would make a throttle equipped pedelec liable to type approval as the DfT indicate.
.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: shemozzle999

shemozzle999

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 28, 2009
2,826
686
So it is back to directly challenging 168/2013 Article2 2(h) on the grounds of Fundamental Rights.

The topic is a hot potato at the moment due to the migrant problem and there have been quite a lot of law challenges on the Commission from Member states based on Fundamental Rights which has led to several recent reports:

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/better_regulation/documents/iia_blm_final_en.pdf

which states:

III.
TOOLS FOR BETTER LAW-MAKING

Impact assessment

12.
The three Institutions agree on the positive contribution of impact assessments in improving the quality of Union legislation.
Impact assessments are a tool to help the three Institutions reach well-informed decisions and not a substitute for political decisions within the democratic decision-making process. Impact assessments must not lead to undue delays in the law-making process or prejudice the co-legislators' capacity to propose amendments.
Impact assessments should cover the existence, scale and consequences of a problem and the question whether or not Union action is needed. They should map out alternative solutions and,where possible, potential short and long-term costs and benefits, assessing the economic,
environmental and social impacts in an integrated and balanced way and using both qualitative and quantitative analyses. The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality should be fully respected, as should fundamental rights. Impact assessments should also address, whenever possible, the "cost of non-Europe" and the impact on competitiveness and the administrative burdens of the different options, having particular regard to SMEs ("Think Small First"), digital aspects and territorial impact. Impact assessments should be based on accurate, objective and complete information and should be proportionate as regards their scope and focus.

Link to 168/2013 Impact assessment where vehicle classes were considered and was conducted without any Legal Basis applied- thus should now be tested against fundamental rights principles.

http://www.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/dossier/document/SEC20101152FIN.do
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: flecc

the_killjoy

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 26, 2008
822
226
It's all very well trying to find grounds for challenging the legislation but who has the time and money to do it?
 

shemozzle999

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 28, 2009
2,826
686
It is above us mere mortals - it is a matter between the UK member state and the Commission if no way can by found to type approve EAPCs.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: flecc

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,216
30,617
It is above us mere mortals - it is a matter between the UK member state and the Commission if no way can by found the type approve EAPCs.
I would like to think that this is the reason the DfT have indicated they cannot introduce the EAPC type approval class before 2018. Negotiation time.

Probably just wishful thinking though.
.
 

craiggor

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 9, 2015
498
171
I would like to know how much tamper time will be allocated to tampering with the anti tamper prof display/controller.

Sent from my D101 using Tapatalk
 

anotherkiwi

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 26, 2015
7,845
5,786
The European Union
I don't tamper with my fully tamperable one. It is set to 26 km/h max assist which is within the 5% tolerance but definitely not legal. My argument is that it is the only setting I found that permits the motor to gradually provide less power and cut out at 25 km/h. We shall see what that setting is with the GSM motor, 25 km/h may be just right?

My goal is range not speed, checking just now I haven't been riding on the open road much lately so my average speed is 22.6 km/h. I did go for a ride to Irun so my max speed is 61.2 km/h. On the way there I pedalled past a fixed speed radar which said I was doing 27 km/h on a false flat bit so slightly up hill, I love Lipo! :D

I am happy with those numbers.