STS 944/2025: a high-powered scooter is, in criminal law, a moped

STS 944/2025, of 17 November, handed down in cassation appeal 1832/2023, establishes a significant criterion for criminal practice in the field of new personal-mobility vehicles: the criminal-law category of a vehicle is not determined by its external shape, but by its real technical performance. The ruling has direct consequences for the application of Article 384 CP — driving without a licence — in the expanding field of urban electric mobility, where settled case law has so far been scarce.

The facts: a 1,900 W scooter capable of 45 km/h

The events before the court involved a vehicle that physically resembled an electric scooter but was fitted with a 1,900-watt motor and was capable of reaching 45 km/h. Its rider was not in possession of the driving licence required for that type of vehicle. The defence argued that it was a personal-mobility vehicle and that no licence was therefore needed. Chamber II rejected that argument and upheld the conviction.

The starting point of the reasoning is clear: the mere appearance of a vehicle cannot be the criterion for classification under criminal law, since it would allow the rule to be evaded by simple cosmetic changes. What is decisive are the vehicle's objective technical characteristics: motor power and maximum design speed.

The classification criterion: real technical characteristics

Chamber II carefully delineates the two categories at stake. Personal-mobility vehicles (PMVs) are defined in regulations by a design speed of between 6 and 25 km/h. Mopeds, by contrast, can reach up to 45 km/h and are subject to a driving-licence requirement. Where a vehicle exceeds the design-speed threshold applicable to PMVs, it leaves that category and falls within the moped category, with all the legal consequences that follow.

This criterion is applied objectively: it does not depend on the manufacturer's intent, the vehicle's commercial name, or how the rider perceives it. If the vehicle's real technical specifications place it in the moped range, it must be treated as such under the CP. The ruling leaves very little room for arguments based solely on the vehicle's appearance or the commercial name under which it is sold.

The application of Article 384 CP

Once the vehicle is classified as a moped, the legal question is resolved without difficulty: riding it without the required driving licence constitutes the offence under Article 384 CP, which penalises driving a motor vehicle or moped without holding the required permit or licence. The prescribed penalty includes imprisonment of three to six months, or a fine of twelve to twenty-four monthly quotas, or community service of thirty-one to ninety days, accompanied by disqualification from driving for more than one year and up to four years.

The Chamber introduces no modulations in applying the provision. Once the two elements of the offence are established — the vehicle's status as a moped and the absence of a qualifying licence — the conviction stands. There is no margin for an interpretation that would exclude criminal liability simply because the vehicle had the shape of a scooter.

Practical significance amid the spread of high-powered vehicles

The ruling takes on particular importance in the current context of a rapidly expanding market for small-format electric vehicles. There are many models on the market with outputs above 500 W or with design speeds that clearly exceed 25 km/h, sold under names evoking the conventional scooter or PMV. The doctrine established by the Supreme Court in STS 944/2025 makes clear that a commercial name or external appearance does not shield the rider from Article 384 CP: what matters is what the vehicle can technically do.

From a defence perspective, this criterion requires a detailed analysis of the specific vehicle's specifications. Rated power output, the homologated design speed and, where applicable, any technical speed limitations actually built in will be central to any challenge strategy. A manufacturer-fitted and verifiable speed limiter may be relevant; a commercial name or aesthetic design will not.

Lines of defence in cases of this kind

When a person is charged with riding without a licence a vehicle of this type, the defence strategy must focus on technical elements rather than on the vehicle's appearance. First, it is open to question whether the real technical specifications of the particular vehicle in question actually exceed the thresholds that place it in the moped category: the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and expert measurements of the specific vehicle may be decisive. Second, where the vehicle has been modified after manufacture — artificially raising its performance above the original design limits — it may be arguable whether the rider was aware of those modifications, an aspect that bears on the subjective element of the offence. Expert assistance from specialists in vehicle type-approval and the applicable technical standards is generally indispensable when building an effective defence in this area.