Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 02.10.1981 1391/81 AI generated

Court held minor structural speed increase below 30 km/h does not require vehicle reclassification.

Case Number Vaasan HO 02.10.1981 1391/81
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the Ministry of Transport's request to reclassify a motorized bicycle as a motor vehicle. The Ministry argued that structural modifications increased the vehicle's speed beyond 30 km/h, necessitating registration and a license. However, the court determined the changes were too minor to alter the vehicle's fundamental nature, thus preserving its status as a motorized bicycle exempt from these requirements.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön asetus moottoriajoneuvoista (1977) 1 §; 1 § 2 momentti: A minor structural modification that increases a motorized bicycle's speed to just under 30 km/h does not change its classification, so registration and a driving license remain unnecessary.

Keywords

AI generated
motorized bicycle classification structural modification threshold speed limit 30 km/h vehicle reclassification registration exemption driving license requirement administrative decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön asetus moottoriajoneuvoista (1977) 1 §
AI generated
appeal_1985_vaasa__1767
Court rules moped exceeding 70 km/h is a light motorcycle requiring registration and a license.
kko-precedent_1988_94
Driving a vehicle over 30 km/h without a license is not a moped offense; the Supreme Court upheld the conviction for driving without a license.
admin_2010_turku__537
Court dismisses driving ban when vehicle speed modification is unproven by driver.
appeal_1966_vaasa__x702
Court dismisses appeal for lack of right of appeal after conviction for drunk motorbike operation.
market_2022_H354
Market Court dismisses complaint against Traficom for failing to find obvious bad faith in domain registration.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Moottoripolkupyörän voimansiirron välityssuhteen muuttamista siten, että ajoneuvon rakenteellinen nopeus ylitti 30 km/h, pidettiin niin vähäisenä rakenteellisena muutoksena, ettei moottoripolkupyörää katsottu tällä toimenpiteellä muutetun sellaiseksi moottoriajoneuvoksi, joka tulee rekisteröidä ja jonka kuljettamiseen tarvitaan ajolupa.

Ks. Liikenneministeriön kirje n:o 7786/70/81

Lainvoimainen