Author Archives: Annick Roetynck

About Annick Roetynck

Annick is the Manager of LEVA-EU, with decades of experience in two-wheeled and light electric mobility.

• Consultation UK Regulations: LEVA-EU’s Plea for Inclusive E-Bike Regulations in the UK

  15/04/2024 18:54 Comments Off on Consultation UK Regulations: LEVA-EU’s Plea for Inclusive E-Bike Regulations in the UK

  An online consultation has been going on in the UK for some time now, concerning proposals by the government to significantly improve the technical rules for electric bicycles.

  The two main proposals are:

  1) increasing the maximum continuous rated power from 250 to 500W
  2) allowing electric pedal assisted bikes to be equipped with a throttle without the vehicles having to be type approved (as is the case today).

  In the EU, and until further notice also still in the UK, an electric bicycle with pedal assistance up to 25 km/h, a maximum continuous power of 500 W and a throttle, is categorised as an L1e-A powered cycle, and must be type-approved.

  EPACs 250W without throttle and EPACs 500 W with a throttle, of the same weight, have exactly the same kinetic energy. Consequently, the result of an impact will be identical for both vehicles. So you would expect these identical vehicles to be subject to identical technical requirements. And yet they are subject to two completely different legal frameworks: the Machinery Directive for the 250W as opposed to Regulation 168/2013 for the 500 W. The result of the latter damming legislation, originally designed for mopeds and motorcycles, thus totally inadequate and inaccurate for any type of electric bike, is that not one powered cycle has been approved. No manufacturer wants/is able to risk type-approval. Moreover, most Member States wouldn’t even know how to deal with such a vehicle in their traffic code. Belgium, one of the few member states to acknowledge the difference between mopeds and electric bicycles in the traffic code, has given L1e-A vehicles the same status as conventional bikes. However, this is to no avail since there are no such vehicles on the market.

  LEVA-EU has been advocating for years for the abolition of the maximum continuous rated power requirement, which plays no role in the safety of electric bicycles. Instead, technical regulations must be developed to ensure that vehicles accelerate safely. The proposed increase from 250 to 500W is not ideal but would provide some breathing space for cargo bicycles in particular.

  The proposal to give electric bicycles with pedal assistance and a throttle the same legal status as bicycles with pedal assistance only sounds like music to LEVA-EU’s ears.

  The UK has 16 million people with a physical disability. For several million of them this means that they are unable to pedal consistently. The combination of pedal assistance and throttle is therefore a solution that can get millions of people in the saddle. Moreover, it will also make the lives of, for example, cargo bike riders and bicycle couriers considerably easier.

  But guess what? The entire British cycling community is loudly calling for the proposals to be turned down!!!!

  The Bicycle Association (BA), the professional organization of (electric) bicycle manufacturers and importers and the dealer organization ACT call the proposed measures “unnecessary” and “risky”. They even claim: “There’s no evidence these changes would significantly boost demand.” That’s really making a fool of the truth. Until 2016, electric bicycles with a throttle were allowed as regular EPACS in the UK. They know all too well that the so-called twist and go bicycles were more popular than bicycles with pedal assistance only. It took the UK until 2016 to align its legislation with European legislation as a result of which e-bikes with a throttle were banished to the L1e-A category.

  The BA and ACT warn that 500W could pose a fire risk! Such absolute nonsense, provided without any proof, undermines the credibility of their argumentation completely. They further argue that e-bikes, on which you no longer have to pedal, could lead to “moped-style regulation on the whole e-bike category“. They have clearly erased from their collective memory the long episode in British law during which e-bikes with throttles enjoyed the same status as conventional electric bicycles, without that resulting in moped-style regulation on the whole e-bike category. The British government now voluntarily offers once again equalization for equal vehicles. Why would they suddenly turn around and change the law into to moped-style regulations after all?

  The sheer nonsense that electric bicycles with throttle could jeopardize the bicycle status of the current EPACs is a song that has been sung by CONEBI for 25 years. The only reason for that position is protectionism. The major companies behind CONEBI do everything they can to protect their cash cow, the EPAC with pedal assistance only, against any competition and at any price. And as a member of CONEBI, the BA naturally sings from the same hymn sheet. It is not clear why the ACT also finds it necessary to deny their members, the (electric) bicycle dealers, a much better future.

  Cyclists’ organisation, Cycling UK, is also firmly against the proposals. In a comment, the director of external affairs showed a complete lack of knowledge of the matter as she stated: “These proposals present a huge safety risk to pedestrians and others who cycle. The dramatically increased power would mean faster acceleration and much heavier bikes, which we’re really concerned about.” The Cycling UK director is clearly not familiar with the concept of maximum continuous rated power, ignorance which does not prevent her from taking a firm stance.

  The British government is voluntarily offering a unique opportunity to remove legal barriers to electric bicycles, making them accessible to millions more people. The BA and ACT challenge that proposal with nothing but intellectual dishonesty, Cycling UK even with stupidity. How dare they deny millions of people access to sustainable mobility, whilst claiming they are defending the interests of their industry?

  The consultation is here, https://rb.gy/a8guw3, and will remain online until 25 April, midnight.

  LEVA-EU calls on all parties with a real interest in growing the light electric vehicle market, and electric bikes in particular, to respond in a positive way to the proposals. It will give millions of people access to electric bikes, it will boost electric cargobike use and it will make mobility in the UK more sustainable.

  We welcome the challenging of the LEVA-EU position on this issue, but we will only engage in evidence-based discussions.

  Annick Roetynck,
  LEVA-EU Manager

• Unique Flemish PhD Unveils the Shortcomings and Promises of Speed Pedelecs

  16:51 Comments Off on Unique Flemish PhD Unveils the Shortcomings and Promises of Speed Pedelecs

  Nikolaas Van den Steen recently obtained the degree of Doctor of Engineering Technology with a PhD thesis on speed pedelecs. After years of research, he successfully defended his thesis entitled “A user-centric analysis of preferences and eperformance of speed pedelec commuting in Flanders”. His work stands out for its interdisciplinary approach, bridging natural and social sciences to unveil new and nuanced insights into the world of speed pedelecs.

  ---

  Central to Van den Steen’s research was the 365SNEL project in which 105 riders were given the opportunity to commute with a speed pedelec for three weeks. He investigated both the performance of the speed pedelecs and the perception and preferences of the riders related to their speed pedelec commute.

  Surprisingly, the study revealed a shift in riders’ motivations over time. Before the test, most riders were mainly motivated by the prospect of saving time by commuting with a speed pedelec. This ultimately turned out not to be true, but after the test, saving time was no longer an important motivation. Other benefits appeared to weigh more heavily. They especially appreciated that with a speed pedelec they always knew exactly how long their journey would take, as opposed to a car journey, which is always completely. Another important benefit was the fact that they experienced mental and physical benefits from daily cycling. Before the test rides, most riders mentioned the high cost of the speed pedelec and perceived traffic safety as the most important barriers. After the rides, those barriers still applied, but another important one emerged: lack of reliability of the speed pedelecs.

  The dissertation provides an anthology of the defects: “There was only one test period out of the 10 conducted where there were no “defects” to one speed pedelec in the fleet. A summary of the defects encountered is: many flat tires, a bike stand broke off, battery connection problems, pedals broke off, charging problems, software malfunctions, chain breaks, broken gears, squeaking brakes, malfunctioning gear systems, broken mirror, broken gear shifter, a broken crank, motor malfunctions, battery casing came loose, oxidation of charging contacts, bolts came loose, ball bearing broke, spokes broke, saddle clamp broke, mudguard came loose, horn kept honking, horn did not work, bell broke, broken assistance controller, deformed tire, . . .” The research clearly showed that improving the operational reliability of speed pedelecs is one very important area for improvement for manufacturers.

  The research has also clearly establishe that practical cruising speeds are below the 45 km/h maximum pedal assisted speed. The cruising speed depends on the vehicle, the users’ behaviour, their preferences and their capabilities. For example, women systematically achieved lower speeds than men, their cruising speed being overall 5 km/h slower than that of the men. This raises further questions not only about the usefulness, but even the safety of limiting assistance to a maximum of 4 times the cyclist’s own capacity. Not only most women, but all riders who are unable to provide sufficient force due to their physique or physical problems are punished for this on speed pedelecs where the maximum assistance is limited to factor 4.

  Furthermore, these are very important findings for allocating a place for speed pedelecs on the road. It clearly shows that speed pedelecs have a completely different driving behaviour than classic mopeds and that it is therefore irresponsible to subject speed pedelecs to the same traffic rules as mopeds.

  From the riders’ point of view, the research concludes that there is only one difference in preferences regarding dedicated cycle paths between conventional and electric cyclists, that is the need for charging points along the route. Apart from that, all cyclists want wide and high-quality cycle paths with safe crossing points, smart traffic lights and secure bicycle parking. Finally, the researcher found that, for an average Flemish commuter, a speed pedelec outperforms a car for commuting in four areas: time predictability, moderate to vigorous physical activity, total cost of ownership and CO2 emissions.

  Nikolaan Van den Steen concludes: “These results first and foremost provide the first scientific data sets on such a scale for speed pedelecs. Secondly, the text proves that certain key preconceptions about the speed pedelec are wrong. Thirdly, the study shows the promise the vehicles hold to combat the challenges Belgium and the European Union faces, if they replace larger and heavier (internal combustion engine) vehicles. Finally, the work ends with policy advice and new avenues of future research in the field of speed pedelecs.”

  The undersigned has had the honour and pleasure to work with Nikolaas in the 365SNEL project and to be part of the jury for his PhD thesis. The work that Nikolaas has done to conduct this research and complete his thesis is immeasurable. The result is invaluable: it is the first research into speed pedelecs that goes so deep and so wide. Hopefully new researchers from here will pick up the thread and explore the new avenues of future research in the field of speed pedelecs that Nikolaas has mapped out for them.

  Annick Roetynck,
  LEVA-EU Manager

  The full dissertation is available here: https://rb.gy/3jj77l

• Is your company affected by anti-dumping measures? Help end the measures by joining the Ad Hoc Group now.

  05/04/2024 17:05 Comments Off on Is your company affected by anti-dumping measures? Help end the measures by joining the Ad Hoc Group now.

  If your company is affected by anti-dumping measures either in the process of importing e-bikes from outside the EU and outside China or in the process of assembling e-bikes in the EU with Chinese components, it’s high time to join the Ad Hoc Group of EU E-Cycle Companies.

  The Ad Hoc Group is working for the removal of both the duties on e-bikes from China as well as the duties on essential bike components.

  The Ad Hoc Group is now acknowledged by the European Commission as an interested party. The Group has submitted a position on the review and is invited by the European Commission for a hearing on Tuesday 30 April. All Ad Hoc Group Members are welcome to participate in the hearing either in-person, in Brussels, or online.

  All further details about the Ad Hoc Group and how to join are below.

  Your involvement will make a difference in challenging the extension of the measures affecting the European electric cycle industry.

  ---

  Is your company involved in any of the following:

  • Importing electric bicycles, electric cargo bikes, or speed pedelecs from China and paying duties?
  • Importing electric bikes, electric cargocycles, or speed pedelecs from a non-EU country OTHER THAN China?
  • Importing components from China for the assembly of electric bikes, electric cargocycles, or speed pedelecs within the EU?

  Is your company facing:

  • Investigation by national customs services and/or OLAF?
  • Accusations of circumventing measures against China?
  • Legal action for circumventing measures against China?
  • Sentencing or acquittal for circumventing measures against China?

  If so, we strongly recommend for your company to join the Ad Hoc Group of EU E-Cycle Companies established by LEVA-EU to collectively oppose the potential extension of these measures against e-bikes from China.

  What has/will the Ad Hoc Group do?

  • The European Commission has acknowledgde the Ad Hoc Group as an interested party.
  • The Ad Hoc Group has submitted joint comments on the Commission’s review, which are here: https://rb.gy/b8enn9
  • On Tuesday 30th April, the European Commission will hear the Ad Hoc Group, allowing companies to express their views. The meeting will be both in-person and online.
  • A specialized lawyer is providing assistance
  • The group’s activities are communicated to the press and on social media.
  • Lobby other influential entities on this matter.

  How to Participate?

  • A modest contribution, based on the number of employees in your company, is required for participation in the Ad Hoc Group.
  • Participation can be kept confidential.
  • LEVA-EU membership is not a prerequisite for joining the Ad Hoc Group.
  • LEVA-EU members receive a discount on the contribution.

  Meeting Details:

  • The Ad Hoc Group will conduct multiple meetings, with the first scheduled for February 15, both in-person in Brussels and online.
  • If the Commission grants a hearing, it will be held in-person in Brussels; all other meetings will be accessible online.

  How to Join?

  • For more information or to join the Ad Hoc Group, please call LEVA-EU Manager Annick Roetynck on +32 475 500 588 or mail annick@leva-eu.com.
  • Are you already determined to join the group? Complete and return the Ad Hoc Group Participation Form to annick@leva-eu.com.

• LEVA-EU calls on EU assemblers for support to end dumping duties on bicycle parts

  14:38 Comments Off on LEVA-EU calls on EU assemblers for support to end dumping duties on bicycle parts

  The anti-dumping measures on conventional bicycles from China are to expire on the 30th August 2024. The measures are now in their 31st year. In 1997, they were extended to essential bicycle components based on alleged circumvention. Those measures are now in their 27th year.

  There is no doubt that EBMA has already or will very soon request the Commission to review the measures against conventional bikes with a view to continuing them for another 5 years. To gather the necessary support for their request, they visit bike assemblers up and down the continent, inviting them to co-sign the request for the review. In doing so, they will undoubtedly explain how it is necessary to continue the measures to avoid Europe being flooded with cheap Chinese bicycles, which would undoubtedly destroy European assemblers. They will add that the measures will allow production to be brought back to Europe and will create jobs.

  The other half of the story

  However, that is only half the story. LEVA-EU hereby invites all European assemblers to think carefully before explicitly expressing their support for EBMA’s request. After all, the other half of the story goes like this.

  The anti-dumping measures against bicycles from China were expanded in 1997 to include essential bicycle parts. Anyone who assembles in Europe must be able to prove that no more than 59% of the value of their components comes from China or that at least 25% value is added in the assembly. Anyone who can prove this will receive an exemption from the European Commission, meaning that 48.5% duties will not be levied on bicycle frames, forks, gears, sprockets, brakes, wheels and handlebars from China.

  When ADD and ASD were levied on electric bicycles in 2018, this had a major impact on the duties on essential bicycle parts. European assemblers who use essential bicycle parts for electric bicycles could also receive an exemption if they proved that they used the parts for electric and not for regular bicycles. Please note that the Commission has not (yet) extended the rights to essential bicycle parts for the European assembly of electric bicycles. Many European assemblers make electric bicycles of which the value of the components amounts to more than 59%. In some cases, the electric bicycles even consist of 100% Chinese components. The European assembly sector cannot do without these Chinese components because the availability of parts outside China is too limited to meet full demand.

  To circumvent or not to circumvent, that is the question.

  The EBMA’s request to the Commission to extend the duties on bikes to essential bicycle components, came almost immediately after the imposition of the duties on bikes, alleging massive circumvention by China. In the case of electric bicycles however, EBMA misses no opportunity to assure European assemblers that they can use as many Chinese parts as they want. And so, companies are happily assembling in a way that, according to the law, can very easily give rise to anti-circumvention measures.

  It is bizarre, to say the least, that while the European Commission responded to EBMA’s request without hesitation for conventional bicycles, the same Commission now simply ignores the situation, even though they could initiate an investigation at their own initiative. After all, why would the Chinese, accused of massive circumvention for conventional bikes, not resort to the same solution for electric bicycles.

  LEVA-EU calls on all assemblers in the EU to treat the EBMA reassurances with utmost caution. In reality, not everyone who assembles in Europe appears to be safe, as EBMA pretends. While the Commission is not currently interested in possible circumvention, some assemblers have indeed been attacked, more specifically by customs services. They determine that insufficient value is added in the assembly, upon which they categorize the import of parts as the import of a complete electric bicycle to which anti-dumping and anti-circumvention duties apply. With this alleged circumvention, the company is committing a criminal offense for which not only arrears are charged, but also extremely heavy fines and possible prison sentences. It will take 5 to 10 years to reach a conclusion in the case. During that period, given the extremely serious threat, it is impossible for the company to grow even if it is ultimately acquitted.

  Pushing businesses straight into the abyss

  So, when you sign certain EBMA requests to the Commission, which are allegedly intended against China and for Europe, keep in mind that this will not necessarily protect you from customs actions that may push your business straight into the abyss. As mentioned, LEVA-EU has no position on the dumping measures against conventional bicycles. As for the extension of the measures to essential bicycle parts, we say loud and clear: in the interests of European assemblers, these measures must be terminated as quickly as possible. No European company benefits from a legal restriction on the use of Chinese parts, nor from a very complex and expensive administration to enforce that restriction.

  LEVA-EU strongly hopes that European assemblers will consider this call and will no longer support EBMA requests that result in the continuation of the additional measures on essential bicycle parts from China.

  There is another important reason to terminate the duties on essential bicycle parts. That legislation makes it virtually impossible for new electric bicycle assemblers to enter the market. To obtain a Commission exemption or end-use approval, they must first pay 48.5% anti-dumping duties on essential bicycle parts from China. This is completely unacceptable because legally there are no anti-dumping duties on essential bicycle parts for electric bicycles.

  Which start-up can afford to include an additional cost of 48.5%, that serves no purpose and even has no legal basis, in their business plan? And to get rid of that 48.5%, which is not reimbursed in the case of end-use authorizations, they must provide significant guarantees!

  This makes EBMA’s claim that anti-dumping measures against electric bicycles from China are necessary to reshore production and to create jobs an outright lie. You may think that it is a good thing for your company if it is difficult for new companies to enter the market. Restriction of competition inevitably results in a reduced, thus less attractive offer and higher prices that ultimately leads consumers to quit. That response will eventually affect all remaining companies, including yours.

  LEVA-EU acknowledges that this is a complex matter and remain therefore at the disposal of anyone seeking further clarification: annick@leva-eu.com, tel. +32 475 500 588.
  

  Photo by Lance Grandahl on Unsplash

• European Court of Justice rules on free access to EU standards, SBS urges caution

  04/04/2024 11:43 Comments Off on European Court of Justice rules on free access to EU standards, SBS urges caution

  All standards, be it national, European or international are not freely accessible. Anyone who wishes to consult a standard, must buy that standard from a standardization institute and must respect copyright rules. That means that purchased standards may only be used by the licensed buyer and may not be put at the disposal of anyone who hasn’t paid for the access to the standard.

  This principle of restricted access was contested in the European Court of Justice (ECJ). On 5 March, the ECJ has delivered judgment in Case C-588/21 P concerning public access to four Harmonized Standards under Regulation 1049/2001. The ECJ has found that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of these four standards and therefore annuls the European Commission refusal of free access to the four standards concerned.

  With that however, the ECJ has not followed the proposal of the applicants and the Advocate General to exclude copyright protection for Harmonized Standards in general. Furthermore, the judgment does not call into question that access to documents under Regulation 1049/2001 may be subject to existing copyright rules, which may limit the right of third parties to reproduce or release documents.

  SBS of which LEVA-EU is a member, reacted with mixed feelings to the court’s ruling. SBS defends the interests of SMEs in standardization. According to the organization, the ruling marks a pivotal moment in shaping the future of the European standardisation system and is likely to bring significant changes. Although the exact implications of the ruling and how it will be implemented are still unfolding, SBS emphasises the need to safeguard SMEs from any direct or indirect adverse effects on their participation in standardisation work.

  While the ruling of the court on the accessibility of mandatory and harmonised standards provides SMEs with direct and public access to documents previously only available for purchase, SBS cautions against pitfalls that may emerge. It is of paramount importance to prevent a scenario where any loss of revenue from the sale of harmonised standards is offset by increased prices of other standards and/or higher participation fees in the national mirror committees contributing to their development, both of which would gravely hinder SMEs’ participation in standardisation.

  SBS stands ready to engage with the broader European standardisation community to discuss the consequences of the ECJ ruling and its implementation. Maitane Olabarria, SBS Secretary General, commented: “European standards are vital for SMEs to benefit from the single market. SBS stands firmly behind the current European Standardisation system and its core principles. We will only be able to fully assess the practical implications of the ruling in the next weeks. Our primary concern is to prevent potential revenue losses from harmonised standards lead to increased costs elsewhere in the system, particularly those directly impacting SMEs.“

  • Full text of ECJ ruling

• World Record Attempt for Largest Charity Delivery by Cargo Bike Ever

  25/03/2024 17:02 Comments Off on World Record Attempt for Largest Charity Delivery by Cargo Bike Ever

  Under the leadership of the Belgian TV personality Pedro Elias, the world record for the “Largest Charity Delivery by Cargo Bike” is (hopefully) going to be set on the 20th of April in Antwerp.

  Antwerp residents are called upon to bring their unused or new personal care products (such as skin creams, toothpaste, toothbrushes, soap, towels, shampoo, etc.) on Saturday 20th of April to the bike shop of Fietsen De Geus in Antwerp.

  From the shop, all cargo bikes will ride in convoy to deliver the items to Kamiano, an organization for the homeless. An official bailiff will register the number of cargo bikes participating, which will be noted as the record attempt. Those without cargo bikes but still wishing to donate products are welcome to ride along or place items in one of the cargo bikes.

  Lieven Jacobs, communication manager of Fietsersbond, praises the charity initiative: “This record attempt is a heartwarming way to bring attention to a very serious issue, namely poverty, in a positive manner.“

  Stijn Wens, founder of mobility blog Antwerpenize and cargo bike club Team Bullitt Hangover, adds: “We find it wonderful that the bike, which might just be the most social and fair way to travel, can contribute to reducing societal problems. For this reason, we are happy to support this action.“

• Ad Hoc Group EU E-Cycle Companies requests termination measures Chinese e-bikes: EU companies under life-threatening attacks

  16:46 Comments Off on Ad Hoc Group EU E-Cycle Companies requests termination measures Chinese e-bikes: EU companies under life-threatening attacks

  On 30th April, the EU Commission will hear the Ad Hoc Group of EU E-Cycle Companies in the case of the expiry review of the anti-dumping (ADD) and anti-subsidy (ASD) duties on e-bikes from China. In a written submission sent to the Commission last February, the Ad Hoc Group which is managed by LEVA-EU has requested the termination of the measures.

  The Ad Hoc Group’s request to terminate the measures against e-bikes from China is based on multiple arguments. First, the Group points out that EBMA’s request for continuation of the measures contains a multitude of incongruities.

  The most striking example is EBMA’s claims on the number of jobs in the so-called EU e-bike industry: “The EU e-bike industry is one of the largest green industries, with more than 1,000 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) having provided approximately 180,000 jobs in the EU.”

  In the Definitive Regulations imposing the AD and AS duties, the Commission calculated that there were 3,493 employees in the EU e-bike industry. So, where have the other 176,507 jobs come from in the short space of time between the Investigation Period used in that investigation and the new one in the Expiry Review Request? The Ad Hoc Group argues that it’s quite clear that the 1,000 SME’s and 180,000 jobs in the EU bike industry as claimed by EBMA is complete fiction.

  Sword of Damocles

  The most important reason for the Group to request the termination of the measures is that fact that many EU companies are attacked because of the measures, attacks which cause serious injury to the companies and sometimes even their demise. The measures against e-bikes, in combination with the measures on essential bike components have become an inextricable legal tangle that put the whole EU e-bike industry at risk and is a threat to the future of the business.

  With that the risk of extended duties hangs like a sword of Damocles over the head of the European electric bike sector.  From the moment the measures came into effect, LEVA-EU has systematically urged its members to comply as closely as possible with the 60/40 rule or the 25% added value. The fear was then particularly great that, as had happened with conventional bicycles, the measures would be extended from electric bicycles to their parts. If that were to happen, it would be a death sentence for many assemblers as there are insufficient non-Chinese parts available to meet the entire European demand, let alone to respond adequately to a growing demand.

  As time went on, it became apparent that EBMA did not intend to apply for the extension of duties to electric bicycle parts. It was at least surprising that, while circumvention of the duties on bicycles from China had been tackled so extensively by, among other things, expanding the duties to the parts, now that suddenly didn’t seem to be an issue for electric bicycle assembly in the EU. Why wouldn’t Chinese exporters use the same techniques to circumvent duties for electric bicycles as they allegedly did and, after 30 years, still threaten to do for conventional bicycles?

  Commission confirms: Article 13.2 not (yet) applicable!

  In 2020 and 2021 a lawyer wrote to the EBMA President, stating that the European Commission had confirmed, in September 2020, that e-bike parts were not subject to the extended duty on bicycle parts nor to the threshold of 60% of parts originating in China. And yet, all new companies coming on the market effectively pay 48.5% import duties on components for electric bicycles until they obtain their exemption or end-use authorization. And upon that, they must provide extensive guarantees!

  As for the General Rule of Interpretation (GRI) 2(a) set out in Annex II to Council Regulation 2658/87, the lawyer writes to the EBMA President: “Until now, the EU customs nomenclature does not define the parts needed in order to have the “essential character” of a complete electrical bicycle, and there has not been any authoritative ruling by the European Courts on the question of the minimum parts needed together to consider that they have the essential character of an electrical bicycle.” The lawyer further suggests that the organization of “the various shipments of parts coming from various suppliers would not itself justify a reclassification of imported parts”. In other words: don’t bring everything in in one and the same container. That appears to indicate some doubt about the soundness of the legal basis of this matter. And rightfully so since in the meantime, dozens of European companies have been and are taken to court under Rule 2(a). One of those companies is facing a possible fine of 60 million euros and 5 years imprisonment for the manager.

  Policy of double standards

  What’s more, around the same time as that correspondence, the Commission grants EBMA’s request to change the rule of origin for non-preferential status. Reason for the request: companies that assemble electric bicycles in non-European countries from mostly Chinese parts are allegedly circumventing. Result: OLAF goes on the hunt in Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, …. and finds violations of the new rule everywhere, violations which are heavily blamed on the European customers of the companies involved. These European companies are not only faced with overdue rights, but also with very serious fines in anticipation of which they must pay very heavy guarantees. Their case has already been dragging on for 3 to 4 years, whilst they are facing a period of 3 to 5 more years before they can expect a decision from the court. Not everyone will survive this.

  All this cannot be described in any other way than a policy of double standards. While some assemblers in the EU are given free rein by the Commission itself to use maximum parts from China for the assembly of electric bicycles, others are being attacked based on a different interpretation of GRI 2(a), of Article 13.2 of the Basic Regulation or on a non-binding list rule for the import of e-bikes from outside the EU.

  What’s more, the fact that EBMA communicated so openly about not having to adhere to the 60/40 or 25% rule, the fact that so many companies in the EU know and use this, created a particularly high risk. The Basic Regulation states in Article 13.3 “Investigations shall be initiated pursuant to this Article on the initiative of the Commission or at the request of a Member State or any interested party on the basis of sufficient evidence regarding the factors set out in paragraph 1.”

  Potentially indescribable damage to the whole EU sector

  If one “interested party” files a complaint, the Commission will have to launch an investigation in which there is a very real chance that circumvention will be established, and the duties will have to be applied to parts from China for electric bicycles. This would cause indescribable damage to the whole EU electric bike sector as the availability of parts outside China is far from sufficient to meet demand. Numerous European companies would be forced to close their doors, especially since the Commission has also made imports of electric bicycles from non-EU countries, other than China, significantly more difficult by changing the rule of origin.

  If the Commission decides to renew the measures, that immense risk will continue to hang like a sword of Damocles over the head of the European electric bike sector. There may well be a real risk for parties who feel unfairly treated to submit a request for an investigation in accordance with Article 13.3 of the Basic Regulation.

  Against the Union’s interest

  As a result of all the above, the Ad Hoc Group also claims that the measures are not in the Union’s interest for the following reasons.

  As explained, the measures cause injury to many EU companies and in some cases even result in the demise of companies. The measures pose a huge threat to the whole EU e-bike sector due to the looming risk of extension of duties to essential electric bicycle parts. The measures are also a major obstruction for new companies to enter the market.

  Furthermore, that negative impact of the ADD and ASD measures on the companies also has a negative effect on the EU citizens. A shrinking number of companies in the e-bike sector will eventually reduce the offer, will undermine R&D and innovation and will inflate prices. This will deter citizens from buying and using e-bikes.

  Diminishing sales equals less income for the companies, job losses and a negative impact on the EU economy through less revenues from taxes and social security contributions. Less e-bikes will also hamper the transition to sustainable mobility and worsen transport poverty. Velo Mondial, an NGO committed to partnering with municipalities to promote urban mobility planning with a particular focus on cycling, opposes the measures. The European Cyclists Federation (ECF) traditionally sides with EBMA because of the financial interconnection with the companies behind EBMA.

  The legislation has become such an inextricable tangle that it threatens to undermine the image of the EU Commission and by extension of the whole EU.

  Finally, the Ad Hoc Group points out that with market surveillance, there is a valid alternative for ADD and ASD, to ensure that not only entry-level and mid-range markets, but the whole EU e-bike market is protected from a flood of unfairly traded e-bikes and to ensure that all companies can operate in a level playing field.

  The full open version of the Ad Hoc Group’s submission to the Commission is here: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hlcgfu61vy0w8br1zuxhr/Submission-open.docx?rlkey=nnynkqfjygx9xakoqmkq5fvwq&dl=0
  Companies interested in joining the Ad Hoc Group and participating in the hearing with the Commission should contact LEVA-EU Manager Annick Roetynck, annick@leva-eu.com, tel. +32 475 500 588.

  Photo by Sandro Gonzalez on Unsplash

• EU companies damaged by anti-dumping legislation meet with Commission

  18/03/2024 17:45 Comments Off on EU companies damaged by anti-dumping legislation meet with Commission

  On 15 March, more than 40 participants, a mixture of company representatives and lawyers, signed up for the meeting with the EU Commission on the damaging effects on EU companies of anti-dumping (ADD) and anti-subsidy (ASD) measures against e-bikes from China. The meeting had been requested by LEVA-EU. In an exchange with three different Commission departments of DG Trade and DG Taxud, a long list of questions was presented. LEVA-EU Manager, Annick Roetynck, opened the meeting with a presentation of the different ADD and ASD issues that are damaging many EU companies.

  ---

  LEVA-EU Manager, Annick Roetynck, opened with the ascertainment that ADD and ASD on e-bikes from China, in combination with related legislation has become an inextricable tangle. EU companies are no longer able to understand the legislation and apply it correctly. As a result, many companies come under attack with their very existence put at risk. Some companies have already gone bankrupt, some are on the brink of bankruptcy. Annick Roetynck concluded that the inextricable tangle causes legal uncertainty that poses very serious risks and threats to the whole EU e-bike industry. As a result, she requested the Commission for clarification of the legislation, for potential measures to provide legal certainty and for potential measures to improve legislation.

  All Chinese components

  One of the first issues on the table was the applicability of Article 13 of the Basic Regulation in court-cases involving national customs services. This Article stipulates among other things that if the Chinese parts in an EU assembly represent 60% or more of the total value of the components or if in the assembly less than 25% value is added, the assembly may be considered to be circumventing.

  In several EU countries, national customs services have embarked on litigations partly based on this very article. In the past 5 years, LEVA-EU has always cautioned its members to comply with the 60/40 – 25% rule for fear of circumvention accusations and extension of the duties to essential e-bike components. It was therefore surprising, to say the least, to find the EBMA openly reassuring its members about the fact that the EU Commission itself had confirmed that the 60/40 rule or 25 % added value did not apply to e-bikes.

  In the meeting, the Commission repeatedly emphasized that customs services have no legal right to invoke Article 13, for which the competence lies solely with the Commission. The Commission representatives also assured that they were prepared to raise the matter with national customs authorities, provided that companies and/or their lawyers addressed the Commission directly. With that, the Commission guaranteed absolute confidentiality.

  One of the company managers in the meeting, who is subjected to a criminal court-case partly based on Article 13, reacted particularly emotionally when discussing this issue. He explained to the Commission, how all his life, he had done nothing but working hard for a third generation EU family business. His perception was that Europe was destroying not only his company but also him personally. He faces a fine of 60 million euro and 5 years in prison, a downright inhumane threat.

  General Rule of Interpretation 2(a)

  Unfortunately, the Commission’s assurances on Article 13, did not solve the problem since a representative of DG Taxud further complicated the issue by introducing the problem of the General Rule of Interpretation (GRI) 2(a), set out in Annex II to Council Regulation 2658/87. This Rule stipulates that the imports of parts may be considered as the import of a complete e-bike, which may prompt customs to categorize the parts under the HS-code for e-bikes instead of the codes for components. That categorization in turn, comes with ADD and ASD, if the components originate from China.

  The Commission seemed genuinely surprised to find a lawyer confirming to the EBMA President in 2021 that: “the EU customs nomenclature does not define the parts needed in order to have the “essential character” of a complete electrical bicycle and there has not been any authoritative ruling by the European Courts on the question of the minimum parts needed together to consider that they have the essential character of an electrical bicycle.”

  The Commission was however unable to provide further clarification on how to practically deal with GRI 2(a). The Commission representative stated: “The import of e-bike parts could be characterized as imports of complete e-bikes for customs’ clarification purposes in principle if they are imported in one or more containers presented to customs’ clearance on the same day. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded that parts imported on different dates are considered complete e-bikes, if it is obvious from objective characteristics that they are related.” In other words, while one department of the Commission confirmed that assembling electric bicycles from 100% Chinese parts was legal for the moment, another department could not give a conclusive answer to the question of how these could be legally imported.

  Import e-bike components ǂ import bike components

  A few years ago, the Commission published an explanatory note for national customs services on the import of conventional bicycle parts, stating that an incomplete bicycle, whether or not assembled, is to be classified under heading 8712 for complete bicycles, if it consists of the frame, the fork and at least two of the essential bike components subject to ADD. It is not possible for the Commission to publish a similar explanatory note for e-bike components because custom services have not asked for this. In the meantime, some custom services in the EU apply the same explanatory note to e-bike components. In the meeting, the Commission confirmed that this is incorrect and declared themselves prepared to make a statement about this!

  The last issue that was discussed in this meeting was the legal validity of the non-binding list rule for imports of e-bikes from outside the EU, issued by the Commission at the explicit request of the EBMA, aimed at actually refuting the change of tariff heading (CTH) for e-bikes imported from outside the EU.

  In 2017, also at the request of EBMA, HS code 8711 was amended to “Motorcycles (including mopeds) and cycles fitted with an auxiliary motor, with or without side-cars; side-cars” with a view to creating a specific HS code for electric cycles. With that, electric bikes came under the same rules of origin as motorcycles, one of which was CTH. According to the Commission, EBMA subsequently requested for a change of that rule of origin, because the rule for motorcycles was allegedly not suitable for electric bikes.

  Since this change, if for instance a Taiwanese, Thai or Turkish assembler imports parts from China for the assembly of electric bicycles to be exported to the EU, that assembly does not qualify as “last substantial transformation” and must therefore be considered circumvention.

  Many outstanding questions

  So, EBMA requested the Commission in 2020 to close the so-called loophole by changing the rule of origin, upon which dozens of EU companies were attacked and literally and figuratively being presented with the bill. At the same time, EBMA reassured dozens of other EU companies that importing Chinese components for the assembly of e-bikes in the EU was not a legal issue.

  According to the Commission, there’s no going back on this change of the non-binding list rule, because it was approved by the member states. All this still doesn’t provide a conclusive answer to the question of the legal validity of this non-binding list rule.

  Furthermore, there are still many other outstanding questions about for instance OLAF’s working methods, the lack of insight into the investigations as well as the lack of redress for the European companies, that are subsequently charged by customs and dragged into legal cases that may last 5 to 10 years and cost the companies fortunes . Since at the end of this meeting, many questions remained unanswered, on behalf of the participants, LEVA-EU expressly requested a second meeting for further discussions. The classification of e-bike components and the discrimination of companies under end-use authorization as opposed to the exemption scheme are two more issues that still need to be discussed. Although some tentative steps towards improvement have been taken, this meeting has mainly shown that the legislation is an inextricable tangle that entrepreneurs simply cannot understand. A story to be continued.

  Photo by Rocío Perera on Unsplash

• Last Call for LEVA-EU Standardization Workshop 27/02

  26/02/2024 09:18 Comments Off on Last Call for LEVA-EU Standardization Workshop 27/02

  Tomorrow, Tuesday 27 February, LEVA-EU is presenting an exclusive workshop on standardization for light, electric vehicles, including EPACs, E-Cargocycles, E-Scooters, etc. This insightful event is co-organized with  SBS and promises a deep dive into the realm of standardization, offering invaluable information.

  The event will take place online only from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.

  Participation in the workshop is free for LEVA-EU and for SBS Members. Non-members pay € 175 for one participant, € 325 for 2 and € 450 for three. Participants must register in advance here: https://rb.gy/aq6s9p.

  Upon registration (members) and payment (non-members), we will send you an invitation with a online link to the workshop shortly before the start of the meeting.

  The agenda is as follows:

  1. Short presentation LEVA-EU and SBS

  2. What are standards?

  3. Why European/international standards?

  4. How is a standard being made?

  5. How is a standard structured?

  6. What’s the procedure to make and vote standards?

  7. Why and how participate?

  8. What’s the relation between standards and legislation?

  9. What is (the use of) harmonizing standards?

  10. How is a standard applied/used?

  11. Which standards, relevant for light electric vehicles are currently being drafted?

  12. What are the relevant published standards?