Accused of complacency with regard to Uber, the State takes up the defense of the multinational, according to which its service of private drivers was carpooling, and did not compete with taxis.
by
When the American company Uber established itself in France, it knowingly violated certain laws to facilitate its development. A situation deplored by some 90 taxi drivers, who joined a collective action brought in November 2017 against the French State. They accuse him of having shown “faulty inertia” and “complacency” vis-à-vis the platform. Dismissed from their requests by the Paris administrative court in 2021, taxis appealed and are now awaiting a second judgment.
According to information from the world, the government is a surprising position in this case. The memory in defense of the Ministry of Ecological Transition (which has the supervision of transport) dated June 30, 2022, which we were able to consult, is not content to defend the means deployed by the State to enforce the laws: it Rehabilitates the practices of the company Uber in France, seeming to ignore the various convictions of which the company has been the subject.
uberpop presented as a simple “carpooling” service
The complainant taxi drivers criticize the state in particular its management of the UberPop file. This service launched in 2014, which allowed any particular with a vehicle to improvise driver, was immediately fought by taxi drivers – who saw it as unfair and illegal competition, since they were subjected themselves to a much strict supervision. If the service was finally arrested by Uber in July 2015, the complainants believe that the State did not deploy the sufficient means to force Uber to respect the law at the time, allowing it to maintain this illegal activity for near ‘A year and a half.
But the memory in defense of the Ministry of Ecological Transition, which develops the arguments of the State, disputes this version of the facts. Refuting the idea of unfair competition for taxis, the State considers that the Uberpop service was of Article L. 3132-1 of the transport code , that is to say carpooling, and not taxi or VTC activities .
a However, offers illegal on several occasions 2>
This argument, already developed by the State at first instance, contradicts the case law in the matter, however clear. A service of private drivers like Uberpop cannot be considered as carpooling, in particular because it is carried out for consideration. If it is possible to share your road costs as part of the carpooling, the objective of the Uberpop drivers was to draw an income. The prices charged were also incomparable to those of the carpooling platforms, with equivalent journeys.
You have 43.18% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.