Friday, May 22, 2015

VTC-taxis: which comes out winner after the Council decision … – Le Monde

Le Monde | • Updated | By

The Constitutional Council made on Friday May 22 its decision on three points of the law of Thévenoud 1 st October 2014 that Uber challenged the American champion of transport with cars driver (VTC).

After this threefold decision, everyone, or almost claiming victory. In fact, taxis, Uber VTC and other operators all have reason to be satisfied. But they have much to be disappointed. Decryption

  • Taxis win on marauding and, to a lesser extent, on the return to the garage

They can rejoice to be confirmed by the Constitutional Council the monopoly of marauding, including electronics. He has held the consistent provision of that Act which prohibits electronic marauding the VTC, this “service” that allows an individual to see in real time on his smartphone available cars and the time they will pick it up for .

The decision on the return to the garage is also a victory for the taxis, even if it will interfere with the margin. The law requires Thévenoud for VTC driver to return to the garage or park in an authorized location between two races.

However, the institution chaired by Jean-Louis Debre said that constitutional obligation to return Garage provided it applies to taxis when in the suburbs (it is rare that they marauding outside Paris).

Yet these are several taxi unions at the proceedings before the Commercial Court in November 2014, where these are from QPC, Uber attacked for unfair competition, accusing him of not applying this provision of the law of the 1 st of October.

  • Taxis lose monopoly pricing horokilométrique

However, taxis are losing the monopoly of pricing that horokilométrique Thévenoud the law guaranteed them. The VTC did not, according to the Constitutional Council, the obligation to inform the customer of the fare at the time of booking.

  • Uber fails on geolocation and return garage

The American company disputed the fact that the law allows VTC to work only by reservation, leaving the taxi monopoly marauding (the opportunity to be hailed in the street), including marauding this electronic service that now allows geotagging of smartphones. It fails on this point.

It is the Court of Appeal that he will return or not to condemn the VTC service of the US group on this point. It could then be content to inform the customer of the waiting time to comply with the law. The provision on the return to the garage should constitute a real obstacle for drivers VTC. The law is considered compliant, so the law qu’Uber will try to change it.

  • Uber wins on rates

The only victory Uber is on horokilométrique pricing. A device that manages with its own algorithms in all countries where it operates.

  • The operators of VTC Uber competitors can meet clarification

Some of them, The Cab and Transdev, Uber attacked for unfair competition. They forbade employers to offer geolocation before booking, and practice a horokilométrique pricing. Now, the rules are clear and must be applied equally to all operators of VTC.

But on the bottom they would have preferred, like Uber, that the provision on the return to the garage and the on geolocation be declared unconstitutional.

While they were at the origin of proceedings before the Commercial Court, their lawyer had refrained from coming to plead against Uber during consideration of QPC by the Constitutional Council.

  • The legal war is not going to stop

If the law is clarified, it ‘ is now the courts of enforcement. Uber does not intend to comply with them spontaneously. Moreover the American group continues his appeals against the legislation. He appealed to the European Commission asking it to declare the law null Thévenoud because its numerical provisions should have been notified to Brussels before being examined by Parliament.


No comments:

Post a Comment