The lifecycle is the product

Part 1 established the affordability problem: a household needs an appropriate mobility outcome, not merely the least expensive vehicle available. This part defines what that household would contract for and what the industrial system would have to preserve in return.

The broader transition is not MML itself. It is the possibility that continuity can become a competitive model: manufacturers, suppliers and service organisations can create value by keeping a complex product relevant, supported and economically active, rather than depending only on its replacement. MML is one automotive operating model through which this hypothesis can be tested.

MML is not a monthly subscription to a car. A subscription changes how frequently a customer pays, whereas MML changes what the industrial system attempts to optimise. The customer contracts for a defined mobility outcome over a defined period; the vehicle supports that contract, but it is not identical to the contract.

This separation matters whenever the vehicle changes condition, moves between users or leaves service. It also makes three transactions visible that conventional ownership, finance and long-term rental tend to combine in different ways: payment for mobility already consumed, contribution to retained physical value and, if the customer chooses it, transfer of legal title.

2.1 Defining a mobility product

A mobility offer begins with the household requirement rather than a model selected from stock. It should specify:

the Mobility Class, including seats, usable luggage capacity, accessibility and journey capability;
the Mobility Term and annual distance allowance;
the expected level of availability and the continuity response when the assigned vehicle cannot be used;
the fixed Mobility Rate, including its permitted adjustment rules;
the separately estimated variable cost of actual use;
the condition standard, normal-use policy and exit options;
the method used to calculate and hold any Material Capital Credit.

The following examples use familiar vehicles only to make different mobility requirements tangible. They are not proposed MML prices, endorsements or claims that the current models were engineered for repeated MML cycles.¹

Illustrative mobility class	Current European model used as a scale reference	Annual distance	Term	Requirement being defined	Affordability constraint
Urban Compact	Dacia Spring	10,000 km	36 months	Four seats, short journeys, compact external dimensions	Declared before quotation
Compact Mixed	Renault Clio E-Tech full hybrid	15,000 km	48 months	Five seats and mixed urban and regional use	Declared before quotation
Family Touring	Toyota Corolla Touring Sports Hybrid	20,000 km	60 months	Two adults, two children, luggage and regular long journeys	€450 a month for the fixed Mobility Rate, energy separate
Family Electric	Škoda Enyaq	20,000 km	60 months	Family capacity, long journeys and dependable charging access	Declared before quotation
Large Family	Volkswagen ID. Buzz, seven-seat	25,000 km	60 months	Five to seven occupants or a high luggage requirement	Declared before quotation

The €450 figure is the household-affordability design constraint developed in Part 1, not a universal European budget and not a quotation for the Toyota used in the table. The point of the exercise is to test whether an appropriate family mobility product can fit within a transparent constraint, not to make the constraint disappear by offering an unsuitable smaller car.

Payment frequency is a separate choice. The customer could pay monthly, annually or prepay the entire Mobility Term. Paying early does not by itself transfer ownership of the automobile. It purchases the contractual right to mobility and, where the offer provides for it, funds a separately recorded claim on retained physical value.

2.2 Continuity when the vehicle changes

The distinction between vehicle and contract becomes practical when something happens to the assigned asset. If hail damages its roof, the customer’s immediate problem is not that an asset worth some €35,000 has lost €7,000 of resale value. The customer needs to get to work tomorrow.

The asset problem belongs to the lifecycle system; the mobility problem belongs to the contract. The system must solve both without pretending that continuity is free.

Event	Lifecycle response	Customer outcome	Commercial test
Repairable hail damage	Inspect the structure, repair or replace the affected section and regenerate recoverable parts	Equivalent temporary mobility, followed by return of the original vehicle when appropriate	Repair, downtime and replacement mobility cost less than retirement and reassignment over the remaining lifecycle
Powertrain or battery-system failure	Diagnose at component level, repair or install a certified replacement, then route the failed unit to remanufacturing or material recovery	Mobility continues under the agreed service level	The intervention preserves more safe productive value than it consumes
Severe collision	Determine whether safe restoration remains rational; if not, retire the vehicle and recover viable components and materials	Another conforming asset fulfils the contract	Insurance proceeds, retained component and material value, and the remaining contract economics support retirement rather than an unsafe repair

“Repaired economically” cannot mean forcing the Agency — the organisation that holds the customer relationship and coordinates vehicles, workshops, insurers and finance across the lifecycle — or the workshop or supplier behind it to absorb the loss. MML is viable only if every necessary participant has a sustainable role:

Participant	Sustainable economic role
Customer	Pays a bounded rate for a defined service instead of receiving unpredictable repair and residual-value shocks
Agency	Earns a disclosed recurring fee for integration, continuity and stewardship rather than depending on opaque return penalties
Workshop and recovery network	Receives viable diagnostic, labour, repair, remanufacturing and logistics rates that support skills and equipment
Manufacturer and suppliers	Earn from durable components, long-term support, remanufacturing, software maintenance and recovered material, not only from replacement vehicle volume
Asset owner and financier	Receives a risk-adjusted return supported by service revenue and independently measured retained value
Insurer or risk pool	Prices defined asset and continuity risks, while verified repair and provenance data reduce uncertainty

The customer should not become the project manager coordinating insurer, dealer, body shop, finance company and replacement-car provider. The complexity still exists, but MML assigns it to organisations capable of managing it and requires the price of that work to remain visible in the economic model.

2.3 A fixed rate and a variable cost of use

The Mobility Rate covers the predictable cost of making the agreed mobility available. Energy and fuel are never included. They remain variable costs because they depend on distance, driving conditions, charging or fuel prices and the customer’s choices. Tolls, parking, ferries and access charges are treated in the same way.

Included in the fixed Mobility Rate	Estimated and paid separately
Vehicle capital and financing	Electricity or fuel
Scheduled maintenance and defined wear allowances	Tolls and ferries
Allowance for unscheduled maintenance	Parking and resident permits
Defined insurance and asset-risk cover	Congestion, low-emission-zone or road-use charges where applicable
Agency, administration and lifecycle operations	Optional cleaning, storage or user-selected services outside the contract
Contractual mobility continuity	Costs created by use beyond the agreed distance or condition rules
Separately disclosed contribution to the Material Capital Credit	Taxes or tariffs legally charged directly to the user

Before the customer signs, the Agency should provide a variable-cost scenario based on comparable use histories, declared annual distance, expected road mix, the vehicle’s real-world consumption range and current local tariffs. The estimate is not a guarantee. It should show its assumptions and a range rather than folding an unstable input into an apparently fixed subscription price.

An Agency may negotiate a discount with a charging, fuel, parking or toll provider. The customer should still see the underlying variable cost, the preferential tariff and any commercial relationship. A discount changes the price paid; it does not turn energy into part of the Mobility Rate.

The complete household estimate is therefore:

Fixed Mobility Rate + estimated variable use = expected total mobility cost.

The fixed rate should itself be expressed as a band only where the permitted causes of variation are defined in advance. “Between €430 and €490 a month, for a later life of the reference vehicle” is meaningful only if the contract explains what can move the amount, what cannot and what happens when observed conditions differ from the estimate.

To prevent those quantities from collapsing into one opaque instalment, an MML contract needs three separate but reconcilable records:

Record	What it measures	Economic treatment at exit
Mobility and service ledger	Mobility already delivered, financing, insurance, maintenance, continuity and Agency operations	Earned as the contracted service is delivered; it does not become an ownership claim
Material-credit ledger	The customer’s vested Material Capital Credit and every permitted adjustment	Remains a customer claim that can be settled, transferred or applied under the published exit rules
Asset ledger	Outstanding capital, technical condition, the productive value remaining in recoverable systems (Component Retention Value), the net value remaining after recovery and processing costs (Material Retention Value) and legal title	Remains with the asset structure until a return, retirement or ownership transfer is completed

The records interact, but they must never settle one another invisibly. Payment for mobility does not automatically purchase the vehicle; a contribution to the Material Capital Credit is not ordinary operating revenue; and an asset loss cannot be deducted from the customer’s balance unless the contract attributes that loss to the customer under a defined and contestable rule.

Once the household offer is separated into service, variable use, customer credit and asset value, public support can also be assessed more precisely. The relevant question is no longer only whether a qualifying vehicle was registered, but which mobility outcome public money purchased and for how long.

2.4 Public support should purchase outcomes

European governments have used purchase grants, leasing support, tax treatment and regulatory incentives to accelerate the transition to lower-emission vehicles.² These measures have generated substantial adoption,³ but a registration, a subsidised contract and an avoided manufacturer penalty are not the same as verified long-term mobility or net emissions reduction.

Instrument	Observed scale or result	What the evidence does not establish	Possible MML application
German Umweltbonus, 2016–2023	€10.17 billion of federal support and €5.28 billion of manufacturer contributions supported 2.17 million registrations, including 1.40 million BEVs and 0.77 million PHEVs⁴	The official evaluation found that estimated free-rider and early-purchase effects reduced net programme effects below gross results	Pay part of a qualifying Mobility Rate only while an eligible household receives verified mobility from a compliant asset
French social leasing	By January 2026 more than 100,000 lower-income users had received an electric car, with offers from €100 per month; the second edition allocated 50,000 vehicles and improved on the first, with 45% going to the lowest three income deciles against 40% and 55% to rural households against 51%, while 34% of ordered vehicles were built in France⁵	Allocation figures do not by themselves measure lifecycle emissions, post-contract affordability or retained asset value	Preserve the targeted monthly-access mechanism while adding continuity, transparent lifecycle condition and a defined material-value settlement
Italian recovery-plan vehicle bonus, 2025–2026	€597.3 million of repurposed national recovery funding, targeting roughly 39,000 replacements, was fully booked within about 24 hours of the platform opening on 22 October 2025, against 55,680 vouchers requested⁶	A budget reserved quickly measures appetite for a discount rather than mobility delivered; the booking data show neither how many vouchers become vehicles nor how long those vehicles stay in service, and eligibility is restricted to municipalities of 50,000 inhabitants or more and their commuter areas, excluding the low-density households the French programme reached	Spread the same public money across verified mobility-months instead of concentrating it in a single point-of-sale discount
EU passenger-car CO₂ regulation incentives	The European Court of Auditors estimated that regulatory modalities may have allowed manufacturers to avoid up to €13 billion in excess-emission premiums in 2020; real-world reductions began mainly as electric-vehicle uptake increased⁷	Super-credits change compliance arithmetic rather than directly reducing emissions, and combustion-car emissions did not fall materially over the period examined	Reward verified delivered outcomes instead of multiplying the accounting weight of a qualifying registration
Social Climate Fund	The EU budget contribution is €65 billion and expected total funding exceeds €86 billion across the Fund’s broad remit, including support for vulnerable transport users and sustainable mobility⁸	This is not a vehicle-only budget and does not automatically authorise any particular MML scheme	A national plan could test targeted mobility support if procurement, state-aid, consumer and Fund rules permit it

The German programme demonstrates both reach and the need to distinguish gross participation from additional effect.⁴ France demonstrates that support can be targeted through a monthly-use product rather than only through outright purchase, although the published allocation results are not an independent impact evaluation.⁵ Italy demonstrates that an instrument can exhaust its budget in a single day and still leave the intended outcome unmeasured: rapid booking reflects the size of the discount and the scarcity of the envelope, disbursement speed was itself an objective for funding that risked being lost, and the urban eligibility boundary excludes the low-density households the French programme deliberately reached.⁶ The EU audit demonstrates a different weakness: an incentive can alter compliance while remaining only indirectly connected to the result society intended to purchase.⁷

MML could make public support more accountable by tying it to several observable conditions:

verified months of appropriate mobility delivered to an eligible household;
real-world energy use and applicable emissions rather than catalogue classification alone;
continued maintenance, repair and component provenance;
a defined return, transfer or material-value settlement at exit;
portability when the household changes provider or mobility requirement;
published public cost per household, mobility-month and verified outcome.

This would not automatically make MML a better subsidy instrument. It would add administration, measurement and the risk that public money protects an inefficient provider. A pilot should therefore compare MML with purchase grants and social leasing using net additional access, public cost, real-world use, provider concentration and retained industrial value. The Social Climate Fund is relevant because it explicitly connects the transition with vulnerable transport users, but any MML application would have to be designed within the applicable national plan and legal framework.⁸

Public support can reduce the cost of access, but it does not answer who benefits from the physical value financed through the contract. That question belongs to MML itself.

2.5 Material equity

The Mobility Rate should not disguise the fact that the customer is also helping to finance the physical matter from which the vehicle is made. An MML contract can therefore separate the part consumed in providing mobility from a Material Capital Credit: a portable, auditable contractual balance linked to the vehicle’s net recoverable material floor.

The credit is not legal title to a changing collection of steel, aluminium, copper, plastics, catalytic materials or battery cells. It is also not a fixed percentage of catalogue price, vehicle weight or gross scrap value. Recovery costs, component condition, commodity prices and the value already consumed in providing mobility all matter.

The same rule produces different retained-value questions across vehicle classes:

Scale reference	Condition that matters to retained value	Possible value path after the first Mobility Term
Dacia Spring	Small traction battery, drive unit, body condition and low-voltage electronics	A second urban cycle, component recovery or material recovery, depending on measured condition
Renault Clio E-Tech full hybrid	Engine, electric machines, hybrid battery, emissions systems and body	Continued mixed-use mobility, remanufactured powertrain components or separated material recovery
Toyota Corolla Touring Sports Hybrid	High-mileage technical condition, hybrid system, interior and load-area wear	Another family or fleet cycle after industrial refurbishment
Škoda Enyaq	Traction battery condition, power electronics, drive unit, thermal system and structure	Continued long-range mobility, battery or component intervention, then material recovery
Volkswagen ID. Buzz	Traction battery, drive system, doors, interior systems and large body structure	Another large-family or service cycle, followed by component and material recovery

These are questions for inspection and modelling, not assertions that a heavier or more expensive vehicle necessarily creates a larger customer credit. MML must publish the rule, vesting schedule, custody and deductions used for the balance. Ordinary kilometres, cosmetic patina and ageing already priced into the Mobility Rate cannot be charged again through an opaque reduction at return.

The credit creates three exit paths:

Return. The lifecycle system takes back the vehicle and settles the vested balance in cash.
Continuation. The balance transfers to another qualifying MML product without requiring the same physical vehicle to follow the customer.
Ownership. The balance is set against a transparent transfer price for the assigned vehicle. When the vested credit and remaining transfer price meet, title can pass without another asset payment.

After ownership passes, continuing MML charges cease. The owner arranges compulsory third-party liability insurance independently and assumes maintenance, asset risk and future loss of value outside the managed service.⁹

The trigger cannot be cumulative payments alone. Otherwise a customer could acquire a nearly new vehicle as soon as a relatively small material floor had been funded, while the lifecycle system surrendered substantial remaining Mobility Capital: the vehicle’s continuing ability to provide safe and appropriate mobility. The transfer schedule must reconcile vested credit, technical remaining value, outstanding capital and the agreed Mobility Term.

This is the crucial difference from conventional long-term rental. Periodic rental payments ordinarily purchase use without creating a reimbursable claim on the returned vehicle’s material value. MML keeps the service charge, customer material claim and legal transfer of title as distinct transactions.

With those transactions separated, the vehicle can pass through several productive cycles without erasing the customer’s rights or pretending that the same physical object must remain assigned for the entire relationship.

2.6 One vehicle, several lives

The first customer may receive a new vehicle. At the end of the Mobility Term, the vehicle returns to the lifecycle system and is inspected against a published standard. Worn components are replaced, safety systems tested, software brought to an appropriate supported baseline and the interior restored to a safe and dignified condition. The asset can then begin another mobility cycle.

This requires a change in design priorities. A vehicle optimised around the moment it leaves the factory and the years immediately after it is not automatically optimised for repeated inspection, disassembly, refurbishment, software support and reassignment. MML moves the lifecycle transition upstream into product architecture, service information, component provenance and supplier contracts.

The change has already begun in partial form. Renault’s Refactory at Flins industrialises vehicle, battery and component refurbishment; Renault reports capacity for 45,000 vehicles a year at its renew workshop, 3,000 electric or hybrid batteries reconditioned in 2024 and 350,000 remanufactured parts in the same year. Stellantis reported that the first year of its Mirafiori circular-economy hub produced 10,000 remanufactured engines, 10,000 gearboxes, 1,000 electric-vehicle batteries and 5,000 reconditioned vehicles.¹⁰

These operations demonstrate that lifecycle work can be industrial activity rather than improvised repair. They do not yet demonstrate the complete MML model, because the original customer contract, vehicle design and material claim may still follow conventional ownership or leasing.

The same example vehicles illustrate how transitions could differ:

Scale reference	First cycle	Transition work	Possible next cycle	Design implication for MML
Dacia Spring	Short urban journeys	Battery-health test, brake and tyre inspection, interior restoration	Lower-distance urban mobility	Low-cost diagnostics and economical access to high-failure components
Renault Clio E-Tech full hybrid	Mixed commuting and family use	Hybrid-system, engine, cooling and emissions inspection	Another mixed-use household	Long support for two propulsion systems and their control software
Toyota Corolla Touring Sports Hybrid	Family use with regular long journeys	Suspension, brakes, load area, hybrid system and structural inspection	Another family or managed fleet role	Durable high-wear surfaces and predictable component replacement
Škoda Enyaq	Family electric mobility	Battery-health assessment, thermal-system service, software baseline and chassis inspection	Continued regional or long-distance mobility	Battery serviceability, diagnostic continuity and software support
Volkswagen ID. Buzz	Large-family or high-capacity use	Door, interior, restraint, battery and structure inspection	Another high-capacity household or service role	Replaceable high-wear interior elements and durable access systems

These scenarios do not claim that every current vehicle can or should make each transition. Safety, type approval, component availability and the economics of the individual asset remain decisive.

European law is also moving lifecycle responsibility upstream. The Council formally adopted new vehicle-circularity rules in June 2026 requiring design and production to support reuse, recycling and recovery, with producer responsibility extending across the vehicle lifecycle and phased recycled-plastic requirements.¹¹ MML goes further by asking the commercial system to preserve the highest safe productive value before a vehicle becomes waste.

Repeated cycles cannot be governed by age and mileage alone. They require a condition model capable of showing which part of the asset has actually been consumed.

2.7 A car does not wear out all at once

An automobile is not consumed as one indivisible object. Age and mileage are useful observations, but neither explains which layer of value has actually been consumed.

Degradation layer	Typical examples	Evidence required	Lifecycle response
Replaceable wear	Tyres, brake friction material, fluids, bearings, bushes, seals and wiper systems	Measured condition, service history and duty cycle	Replace at a defined threshold and return recoverable parts or materials to the appropriate stream
Material ageing	Coatings, plastics, elastomers, adhesives, wiring, displays and interior surfaces	Inspection, environmental exposure, diagnostic results and known material behaviour	Protect, locally repair, replace or accept where function and dignity remain intact
Functional obsolescence	Unsupported software, incompatible communications, changing safety expectations, inefficient power electronics or unavailable components	Support status, regulation, compatibility records and comparison with available alternatives	Update, substitute, redesign the service role or retire the affected system when support is irrational
Structural or economic damage	Severe corrosion, deformation, flooding, fire or failures whose restoration consumes more value than it preserves	Structural measurement, contamination assessment, repair plan, cost and safety review	Restore only when safe and lifecycle-positive; otherwise retire the vehicle and preserve viable components and materials

Cosmetic evidence of ordinary use is not a fifth form of structural degradation. A scratch may affect commercial desirability without reducing safe mobility. The condition standard must keep appearance, maintenance and safety separate so that normal use is neither ignored nor converted into a second revenue stream at contract end.

A vehicle can accumulate substantial mileage while remaining technically coherent. Another can travel little and still deteriorate through corrosion, neglect, unsupported electronics or a poor repair. The relevant question is not when a car is “used up”, but which value layer has been consumed and where the remainder can create the greatest future mobility.

That technical history belongs to the asset. The relationship history of the person using it is a different record and needs different limits.

2.8 Reputation without permanent punishment

Repeated lifecycle relationships create two histories. The vehicle needs a technical record of maintenance, damage, software, components and transitions. The customer may also build a relationship history demonstrating reliable maintenance attendance, accurate reporting and responsible use. Combining those records into one permanent score would be both analytically weak and socially dangerous.

Event	Asset record	Customer treatment	Decay and portability rule
Five claim-free years	No asset defect implied	May support a lower risk estimate	Positive claims history should be portable between providers
One at-fault collision	Repair and component history remain with the vehicle	May affect risk for a defined period	Weight declines over time rather than becoming a permanent label
Missed service because the Agency offered no appointment	Maintenance delay remains visible	Customer is not penalised for provider failure	The cause and attempted booking travel with the record
Repeated ignored safety-service notices	Resulting technical condition remains visible	May justify a temporary, contestable risk adjustment	Adjustment decays after demonstrated compliant behaviour
Theft or fraud prevalence in the customer’s area	No defect is attributed to the individual vehicle before an event	Territorial risk is pooled and mitigated operationally	Postcode does not become a permanent personal reputation
Income loss or changed family circumstances	No technical effect by itself	Product and payment schedule may change	Financial vulnerability is not reclassified as unsafe driving

EU motor-insurance law already provides a limited precedent for portability. A policyholder can request a standardised statement covering at least the previous five years of third-party liability claims, and insurers using statements from other Member States must treat them on equal terms with domestic statements.¹²

MML would collect broader data than a conventional claims statement, so portability alone is insufficient. The customer must be able to see relevant records, correct errors, understand material pricing consequences and contest significant decisions. Guidance from the European Data Protection Board specifically identifies usage-based insurance as a context in which automated decision-making and profiling require meaningful information about the logic and consequences involved.¹³

Reputation therefore needs boundaries:

positive evidence is portable;
negative evidence loses weight through time and subsequent behaviour;
only behaviour reasonably within the customer’s control is individualised;
geographic, engineering and provider risks remain pooled or assigned to the organisations able to reduce them;
no significant exclusion or price decision relies on an unexplained permanent score.

MML should pool what individuals cannot control, price what they can influence and return engineering risk to the organisation capable of engineering it away.

Together, these distinctions define the lifecycle as a product: a mobility outcome, a visible economic contract, a protected customer claim, an auditable asset history and a bounded relationship record. They also create an engineering brief. If the industrial system remains exposed to the vehicle across several lives, the vehicle itself can no longer be designed only for manufacture, first sale and an initial warranty period. Part 3 takes up that brief and asks what has to change in the asset.

Manufacturer references for the current European model range: Dacia, Spring technical data; Renault, Clio E-Tech full hybrid; Toyota UK, Corolla Touring Sports; Škoda, Enyaq; Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles, ID. Buzz technical specifications. Accessed 7 September 2026. Models are scale references only; availability and specifications vary by market. ↩
European Commission, Report on the State of the Energy Union 2022, section on renewable energy in transport. The report records Member State measures including purchase subsidies, tax exemptions and other fiscal support for electric and plug-in vehicles. France’s social-leasing programme and the EU regulatory incentive are documented separately below. ↩
European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association, new car registrations, 2025 and new car registrations, first half of 2026. Battery-electric cars reached 17.4% of EU new registrations in 2025, up from 13.6% in 2024, and 20.7% in the first half of 2026. These are industry-association registration counts. They measure how many qualifying vehicles entered the market, not how long those vehicles remain in service, how much they are actually driven, or what they displace — which is the distinction this section is concerned with. ↩
German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, Evaluation of the directive promoting sales of electrically powered vehicles, 2024. The evaluation covers 2016–2023 and reports public funding, manufacturer contributions, supported registrations and estimated free-rider, early-purchase and rebound effects. ↩ ↩²
French Ministry for Ecological Transition, 50,000 vehicles allocated in the second edition of social leasing, 12 January 2026. ↩ ↩²
Incentive scheme funded through Italy’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan, Mission 2, Component 2, Investment 4.5. European Alternative Fuels Observatory, Italy launches new EV incentive programme offering up to €20,000, 24 October 2025; electrive, Italy launches electric vehicle bonus, 23 October 2025. Grants reach €11,000 for applicants with an ISEE indicator up to €30,000 and €20,000 for micro-enterprises, and require scrapping a Euro 5 or older vehicle. Dividing the published budget by the published replacement target implies roughly €15,000 of public support per vehicle, against roughly €4,700 per supported registration under the German programme. More vouchers were requested than the target assumed, so the realised average depends on how many are validated; both figures are indicative rather than evaluated costs per outcome. ↩ ↩²
European Court of Auditors, Reducing carbon dioxide emissions from passenger cars, Special Report 01/2024, particularly paragraphs 60–69. ↩ ↩²
European Commission, Delivering the European Green Deal, and guidance on Social Climate Plans. The €86 billion figure covers the Fund’s complete scope, not transport alone. ↩ ↩²
European Union, Car insurance validity in the EU. A vehicle registered in an EU country must carry third-party liability insurance; ownership-transfer and policyholder requirements remain subject to national law and contract. ↩
Renault Group, The Refactory in Flins; Stellantis, first-year results from the SUSTAINera Circular Economy Hub, 13 December 2024. The figures are company-reported operational results. ↩
Council of the European Union, Council greenlights rules for a more circular automotive sector, 29 June 2026. ↩
Directive (EU) 2021/2118, motor insurance and claims-history statements, Article 16; European Commission, Motor insurance. ↩
European Data Protection Board, Guidelines 01/2020 on processing personal data in the context of connected vehicles and mobility-related applications, version 2.0, adopted 9 March 2021. ↩