The Court of Justice of the European Union has considered the Barcelona metropolitan taxi regulation of 2018 not in accordance with European law, after the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia consulted it before issuing a ruling on the limits that it sets for transport vehicles with drivers (VTC). This, now, can no longer have any other meaning than annulment. However, the most important thing is what consequences can it have the jurisprudence that the CJEU has established on the regulations currently in force (the ‘Ábalos decree’ of 2018, which passed the ball to the autonomous communities and, in the case of Catalonia, that of the Parliament of 2022 that made use of these powers) , as well as on the hypothetical new specific regulations that may be approved by the Barcelona metropolitan authorities or any other local authority.
A part of the ruling has been explained by the Barcelona City Council as a success and, by the taxi sector, as an opportunity. When asked whether, in addition to the generic licences, a second local permit with additional requirements can be required, the answer is positive. But since it supposes a limitation to the freedom of establishment and competition, it can only be justified if it attends to reasons of general interest, such as guaranteeing orderly traffic or defending the environment.
The problem for those who see this pronouncement as a victory for the regulatory purposes of the VTC sector is that it establishes very demanding criteria about what is in the general interest, and makes it clear that these metropolitan regulations did not meet them. The arguments to sustain that the proliferation of VTC is detrimental to the environment and the flow of traffic and that therefore the established restrictions were justified have been refuted by the court. And he has remembered that defending the economic viability of a sector threatened by a new competitor cannot be considered as a cause of general interestNor does it consider that the simple limitation of licenses in relation to those of the taxi is a justifiable measure (the 30/1 rule).
The representatives of the taxi drivers have claimed that the possibility of approving a now endorsed local regulation serves just to set a ‘numerus clauseus’ of licenses to the VTC like the one that the CJEU considers unjustified, so their aspirations have little scope. And the warning that the restrictive measures cannot be arbitrary augurs Serious problems for Parliament regulations (which, for example, discretionally imposes a minimum dimension of 4.90 meters on vehicles with a VTC license, when, on the other hand, the taxi regulations in Barcelona allow models of 4.40 meters in length).
The introduction of new modes of mobility really puts a sector like the taxi in a difficult situation, but the answer must be an intelligent adaptation. Taxi drivers are subject to public service regulations and it is reasonable that their competitors should not be exempt from them and compete on equal terms. They also encounter a problem due to the expectations created regarding the investment that the purchase of a taxi license has entailed, which may require some type of compensation. But protectionist barriers are neither a solution for the future nor, at all, are they easy to legally accommodate.