18 mai 2026
This page summarizes the conversation dated above with Mr. John van de Zwan regarding a potential path to a certification/homologation of the De Graf chassis (and possibly other replacement parts) as a genuine replacement part. This certification/homologation would enable the FFVE (Fédération Française des Véhicules d’Epoque) to grant the cars equipped with a De Graaf chassis the desirable « Collector » status.
As a reminder, a link to the page describing the genesis of the car that triggered all the following can be seen by clicking HERE.
IMPORTANT: This document is not accessible through the menu.
The link to this page remains confidential and should only be shared
with the persons involved in this matter.
All documents are in French. The following pages are organized as follows:
The left column provides a summary of the content linked in the left column.
Clicking on the link will open a new page with the document.
Hierarchy of the bureaucracy.
- The FFVE follows the ministry directives to grant the « Collector » status.
- The ministry supervises the activities of the FFVE but does not possess the technical expertise. The ministry relies on various expertise centers.
- For the part homologation, the ministry relies primarily on « Aventure Peugeot-Citroen, » an organization that positions itself as a technical expert and, today, supports the monopoly of MCDA. They are the entity that needs to be persuaded that your chassis is equivalent to those from MCDA.
Sept 11, 2025
Letter confirming the initial denial by the FFVE to grant my 2CV the « Collector » Status.
The French regulations require a unique VIN to be stamped on the chassis. De Graaf identifies the chassis with a CIN (Chassis Id Number) riveted plate; this CIN differs from the VIN for obvious quality reasons. The FFVE uses this difference to reject the « Collector » status.
Please note that the FFVE cites a security risk as the basis for the denial; however, this security risk does not affect the roadworthy certification of the vehicle.
FFVE status refusal letter
Nov 17, 2025
In order to trigger the homologation of the De Graaf chassis, I wrote a mail to the Association Peugeot-Citroen. Their answer is unambiguous: only the chassis from MCDA are homologated.
This raises the following questions:
Has the Association been informed that
1- the tooling used by De Graaf is a genuine Citroen equipment.
2- the quality of the metal used by De Graaf is equivalent or better than the original steel or the one used by MCDA.
Providing these elements would render the homologation refusal groundless.
Mail exchange with l’Aventure P. C.
Nov 18, 2025
Letter to the ministry to reverse
the FFVE decision.
Letter to the ministry to reverse
the FFVE decision
Jan 9, 2026
Email to confirm my request for a reversal of the ministry decision.
The conversation with the ministry agent following this exchange points to Aventure Peugeot Citroën as the expert for homologation of replacement parts.
Reversal request mail
Feb 9, 2026
Mail to the président of the Citroën Club de France who approves my attempt to reverse the certification denial.
Mail exchange with the Citroen Club
Feb 25, 2026
Final closing document by the ministry.
This refusal to reverse the initial refusal is grounded in the non-homologation by L’Aventure Peugeot-Citroen of the De Graff chassis. The ministry relies on the association for the technical expertise.
Should L’Aventure Peugeot-Citroën homologate the De Graaf chassis, the VIN/CIN stamping issue still will need to be resolved.
Final (so far) answer
May 25, 2026
Email to l’Aventure Peugeot-Citroen requesting the necessary documents to homologate tha chassis.
June 1, 2026
As l’Aventure Peugeot-Citroen did not respond, I demanded an answer, and I got half of an answer. As it was obvious, l’Aventure is technically unable to deliver an homologation, Citroën does. I demand an entry point.
Path to certification
De Graaf must show that
- The tooling (presses) employed in the shaping of the chassis are authentic Citroën toolings.
- The metal utilized adheres to Citroën specifications, or the metal employed by De Graaf is comparable to or better than that used by MCDA.
- Should the technical specifications be satisfied, is it possible for a legal professional to highlight the contradiction of a monopoly in relation to the European Free Trade directives, thereby facilitating the legal and technical homologation of the De Graaf chassis?