A cyclist, who was riding an electric bicycle on a public road in Belgium, was struck by a car insured by the defendant. The cyclist was seriously injured and died some months later. Since the accident constituted a “commuting accident” for the cyclist, his employer’s occupational accident insurer (the claimant), paid compensation to his family and was subrogated to his rights and those of his successors in title. The employer’s insurer brought a claim against the car driver’s insurer before a Belgian court seeking the reimbursement of its expenses and the latter insurer counterclaimed for the reimbursement of a sum which allegedly should not have been paid. The court found that the driver of the car was not responsible for the accident but that, nevertheless, his insurer was required to pay compensation under national law. The car driver’s insurer’s appeal was dismissed and the employer’s cross-appeal was allowed by the appeal court, which found that the concept of a “motor vehicle” referred to in the national legislation corresponded to the concept of a “vehicle” in article 1 of Parliament and Council Directive 2009/103/EC, as “any motor vehicle … propelled by mechanical power, but not running on rails”. It concluded the cyclist was not the driver of a “motor vehicle” and that he could claim compensation under the national legislation as a “vulnerable road user”, as could the employer’s insurer which was subrogated to his claim. On the car driver’s insurer’s appeal, the Court of Cassation, Belgium, stayed the proceedings and referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling the question, in essence, whether the concept of a “vehicle”, within the meaning of article 1 of Directive 2009/103, encompassed a bicycle whose electric motor provided pedal assistance only and which was equipped with a function allowing the bicycle to accelerate to a speed of 20 km/h without pedalling, a function which could however be activated only after the use of muscular power.
On the reference—
Held, since there was a divergence between the different language versions of article 1 of Directive 2009/103, that provision had to be interpreted by reference to the general scheme and the purpose of the rules of which it formed part. Taking into consideration the general scheme and purpose of the Directive, devices which were not propelled exclusively by mechanical power and which therefore could not travel on land without the use of muscular power, such as the electric bicycle at issue, which, in addition, could accelerate to 20 km/h without pedalling, did not appear to be capable of causing bodily or material damage to third parties comparable, as regards gravity or scale, to the damage that could be caused by motorcycles, cars, trucks or other vehicles, travelling on land and propelled exclusively by mechanical power, which could reach speeds significantly higher and which, at present, predominated on the road. The objective of protecting victims of road accidents caused by motor vehicles, pursued by the Directive, therefore did not require that such devices be covered by the concept of a “vehicle”, within the meaning of article 1. Accordingly, the concept of a “vehicle”, within the meaning of article 1 of Directive 2009/103, did not encompass a bicycle whose electric motor provided pedal assistance only and which was equipped with a function allowing the bicycle to accelerate to a speed of 20 km/h without pedalling, a function which could however be activated only after the use of muscular power (see judgment, paras 35, 36, 40, 41, operative part).
B Maes for the car driver’s insurer.
J Verbist for the cyclist’s employer’s insurer.
S Baeyens, P Cottin and C Pochet, agents, for the Belgian Government.
J Möller, P Busche and M Hellmann, agents, for the German Government.
M Pere, agent, for the Finnish Government.
A Nijenhuis and H Tserepa-Lacombe, agents, for the European Commission.