January 30, 2021
02:30
–
The insurance exemption for vehicles of less than 25 km / h, which does not mention the mass of the vehicles, was found to discriminate against Class A mopeds.
–
A judgment of the Constitutional Court ruled that the legislative device which exempts vehicles of less than 25 km / h from compulsory insurance is unconstitutional and discriminatory, just that.
–
The Court was answering questions for a preliminary ruling on the distinction which the legislature had made between class A mopeds and other vehicles. Class A mopeds of a maximum of 25 km / h, whether gasoline or electric, are indeed obliged to take out civil liability insurance. This is not the case for other self-propelled vehicles which travel at a maximum of 25 km / h.
–
Two judgments on appeal
It all started with two convictions. A driver of Cherry picker who was not insured was sentenced. But on appeal, he argued that a new exception of May 2019 no longer required him to insure. A shame when we know that his vehicle weighs more than 7.5 tonnes and is therefore far from the exceptions imagined by the legislator.
–
Another Class A moped driver was also convicted because he did not have RC insurance. On appeal, he argued that this obligation was discriminatory.
–
So it was necessary put some order in all this. The legislator recalled that its aim was to protect weak users and that objective criteria on speed and kinetic energy, depending on the weight of vehicles, had been retained.
–
Review the texts
The Court considered that the fact that class A mopeds had been obliged to take out insurance for several years was irrelevant, but on the other hand recognized that these drivers could not be recognized as weak users.
–
By cons “It emerges from the non-exhaustive list of vehicles made during the preparatory work that the legislator assumes that all other vehicles with a maximum speed of 25 km / h necessarily have a lower mass than class A mopeds“.
–
In fact, the mass of vehicles is not explicitly mentioned in the texts, which makes the exception discriminatory in the absence of objective criteria. It therefore seems that at the Ministry of the Economy, it will be necessary to review its copy.
–
–
