Don't lose sight of the fair go, Bill.

Australians are spoilt for choice this week in politics. On the far…

Having it All Ways: Scott Morrison’s Jerusalem “Compromise”

The pieces were already put in place during the Wentworth federal by-election,…

Who does Scott Morrison serve?

By 1PeterMCC Interfering in religious unrest (by recognising West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital)…

Will the curse of the despatch box strike…

As the Prime Minister of the day strides to the despatch box…

The Kosovo Blunder: Moves Towards a Standing Army

There never is a time not to worry in the Balkans. The…

Creating conflict

By Stephen Fitzgerald What started out as a pathetic little grab for votes…

Jesus Supports Discrimination!

Ok, there's been one or two confusing messages coming from the Morrison…

Oh what a difference a new job makes

On Thursday, the Government announced a review into the "integration, employment and…


Normalising Uber: The CJEU Ruling

It was something of a clanger for the ride hailing service that has made authorities across the globe sceptical and stroppy. Uber has lobbied, cajoled, and bullied its way into the transport markets of the globe, while still claiming to be a humble, facilitating technology company.

The legal team at Uber has, at times, been ingenious. At other times, it has been disingenuous. Conventional rules on tax, regulation and governance are there to be flouted, if not danced around. Sprouting from the technology climes of California, it has run on the myth that it merely oils the wheels between paying customers and enterprising drivers, acting as connector and facilitator that bypasses traditional formats of transport. Using a digital app as the basis of connecting the driver with the customer, the argument has been much like that of the torturer and the priest: the priest remains clean as the torturer gets his hands dirty.

Spotting this problem in 2014, Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi, a professional taxi drivers’ association in Barcelona claimed that Uber, through Uber Systems Spain, had been engaging in misleading practices, in addition to the usual accusation of unfair competition.  Neither Uber Systems Spain, nor those non-professional drivers associated with the venture, had the requisite authorisations and licences required in the metropolitan area of Barcelona.

As Article 4 of the relevant law stated, “The provision of urban taxi services is subject to the prior grant of a license entitling the license holder for each vehicle intended to carry out that activity.” Only town halls and “competent local authorities” in the relevant territory could issue such licenses.

The Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona, otherwise known as Commercial Court No 3, Barcelona, Spain, wisely found that the issue should have broader international significance, notwithstanding the localised activities of Uber Systems Spain. Not having local authorisations and licenses in Spain was a question that deserved the scrutiny of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

As the Advocate General Szpunar explained in May, the question for Uber was whether its activities constituted “a transport service or service in the field of transport for the purposes of Article 58(1) TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123.” It was an opinion that would set the ground against Uber, claiming that the company “exerts control over all the relevant aspects of an urban transport service”.

As with all matters legal, classification is king. The issue of not having prior administrative authorisation hinged on the issue what form of classification could apply to the service, be it that on the provision of services within the internal market, or that of the directive on electronic commerce. Uber was naturally pitching for the line that was merely engaged in electronic commerce, a technology middleman.

That found little weight with the judges. Uber’s services “must be excluded from the scope of the freedom to provide services in general as well as the directive on services in the internal market and directive on electronic commerce”.

“It follows that, as the EU law currently stands,” went the judgment of the court, “it is for Member States to regulate the conditions under which intermediation services such as that at issue in the main proceedings are to be provided in conformity with the general rules of the FEU Treaty.”

The regulations and directives of the EU, taken as a whole, “must be interpreted as meaning that an intermediation service” such as Uber’s, “the purpose of which is to connect, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban journeys, must be regarded as being inherently linked to a transport service”. It followed that they “must be classified as ‘a service in the field of transport’”.

Uber’s reaction to such rulings is always a mix of indignation and reluctant acceptance, framed as a wounded pioneer in a world of ignoramuses. In the words of a spokesman, “millions of Europeans are still prevented from using apps like ours.” Then comes the conciliatoriness. “As our new CEO has said, it is appropriate to regulate services such as Uber and so we will continue the dialogue with cities across Europe.”

The impacts of the CJEU decision are also being shrugged off. The decision, after all, specifically focuses on peer-to-peer ride services, still frowned upon in such jurisdictions as Belgium, France and Spain. Uber is also taking the professional route in some cities – Madrid and Berlin stand out as examples.

The move to normalise Uber within the transport architecture of urban environments, despite continued resistance, is proving inexorable. As Natasha Lomas of Techcrunch notes, “any faint hope the company might still have entertained of being given a legal green light to speed down a digital EU fast-lane and overtake local transport interests is gone.”


  1. Steve Laing

    Here in WA, the person who was appointed to take on the head role just happened to be a Liberal party policy chairman. Uber’s approval was remarkably rapid, despite it being impossible to drive an Uber and comply with WAs driving rules. I suspect Uber employ similarly “connected” individuals to help smooth things along…

  2. paul walter

    I once drove taxis and watched as automation drove people and their severance pay into the taxi world, these paying in the end quite massive fees for ownership of taxi plates.

    It seems somehow unfair that people who paid high fees to own and drive taxis and be subject to laws ensuring safety of vehicles are suddenly cut down by fly by nighters because of some change in communications technology.

  3. 245179

    was it not a case that taxi owners themselves drove market values sky high to own a license ( $100k plus ) infact many owners purchased extra licenses, and onsold them as market prices increased. ( taxi companies also accumulated bulk licenses, and onsold them )
    I can understand current license holders trying to protect their inflated purchases.
    I have used uber several times, the “experience” was good. No longer do i have to queue at the airport…..waiting waiting.

  4. Terry2

    Uber fall into the category of smoke and mirrors and a manifestation of the Gig economy run by Dudes for their own benefit.

    The business model of Uber seems to be not formally employing people to do a job and then not paying them a living wage for doing that job.

    It’s about time that we pulled aside the curtain and revealed the Uber Wizard of Oz for the scam merchants that they are.

  5. Zoltan Balint

    Traditional taxi company had to purchase a car pay for maintanance registration insurance someone to drive it and the licence to operate it. Uber does not pay for anything just takes a cut from the drivers earnings. Uber does not even check if the driver can drive or knows how to get from A to B. How good is that. Airtasker is the same but with a twist, the lowest price gets the job but still has to pay Airtasker for the opportunity. And if something goes wrong the worker is responsible 100%.

  6. 245179

    Getting from A to B, easy as…..GPS navigator. Have used device all over the world, would not embark without it.

  7. paul walter

    245179, how ignorant you are to forget that people seeking alternative income were often people laid of in the tens of thousands during de- industrialisation.

  8. Zoltan Balint

    Sorry forgot one thing. As the driver or worker you are responsible to collect and pay any tax. Uber or Airtasker will not. Ah … the GPS … the modern version of the Melways … or the old can you tell me how do I get to. Might as well ask the person you are driving, they know where they want to go and the best way to get there. You don’t since you need a GPS.

  9. paul davis

    Of course Uber is quick and convenient, just like self serve checkouts and tap n go, so we upwardly mobile movers and shakers dont have to be distracted or bothered by interaction with the great unwashed.
    And the serfs should be thankful for the gig economy which gives them so much choice and freedom from the drudgery of the factory production line.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: