The Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza rejected the request for unconstitutionality raised by the Association of Taxi Owners (Aprotam) in 2018 against the law that regulated the Public Transport service and made possible the activity of Uber and Cabify in the province, judicial sources reported. .
Chamber II of the highest court in Mendoza, made up of judges Mario Adaro, José Valerio and Omar Palermo, unanimously resolved reject the presentation made by Aprotam against provincial regulations 9086 that enabled the activity of the remís companies through electronic platforms.
“The attempt to resolve disagreements and tensions has been Law 9086, which has brought as a novelty the regulation of the private transport service through electronic platforms, a kind of legal sandbox,” said Adaro, one of the members, among other points in his ruling. of the Supreme Court.
“But – added Adaro – it has also allowed, on the one hand, the continuity of the taxi and remis service with some reasonable modifications, and on the other, it has provided for the possibility that they also use such platforms, which has already been put in place. testing”.
Finally, Adaro argued that “it is a test that has been tried in the Province, through this legal sandbox, and that it can vary and improve according to the experience of users and consumers, but that, according to the analysis carried out, it is not unreasonable, arbitrary nor does it alter the essence of the rights that the plaintiff indicates affected in her claim, therefore, it is appropriate to reject the attempted action”.
The owners of taxis grouped in Aprotam made a proposal in 2018 of the Provincial Mobility Law – 9086– by substantiating, among other items, that the regulations affect the guarantees of exercising all lawful industry in decent and equitable working conditions with equal remuneration for equal work and job stability and fair remuneration and it is an arbitrary provincial legislation and therefore unconstitutional.
In the lawsuit, it was assured that regulation 9086 modified the classification of public service for that of “general interest transport” to the service of taxis and remises and that they introduce the private transport service through electronic platforms.
They also argued that these rules protect legal inequality, unfair competition and social confrontation.
Regarding the latter, José Valerio pointed out that “the depublishing by the provincial government of an activity previously classified as a public service, such as that regulated by the regulations in question, is its own matter and legislative responsibility.”
