Post by xyz3400 on Feb 20, 2024 8:17:36 GMT
The carpooling service should not be confused with paid rides (applications such as Uber and 99), nor with intercity passenger transport. With this understanding, the 1st Chamber of Public Law of the São Paulo Court of Justice exempted the São Paulo Delegated Public Transport Services Regulatory Agency (Artesp) from inspecting the Blablacar application, a carpooling platform. Disclosure Disclosure Blablacar app, a carpooling app, should not be inspected by a regulatory agency A bus company went to court to demand that Artesp be forced to monitor Blablacar. However, the request was denied. According to the rapporteur, judge Vicente de Abreu Amadei, the regulatory agency has no duty to monitor the carpooling service, which is different from the transport of passengers for profit.
In the context of private transport, the difference must also be established between the so-called “paid ride”, in which there is the intention of making a profit, as occurs in applications such as Uber, 99, Cabify, and “solidarity ride”, in which there is only the sharing of travel costs, with no intention of making a profit", stated the rapporteur. Amadei stated that, although the Blablacar platform has started a process of charging Honduras Mobile Number List users for subscriptions, this should not be confused with charging a fee for the transport itself. "This is mere remuneration for using the system and not a ticket charge, even as such amounts are not passed on to drivers", he added. For this reason, the judge stated that it was not possible to compare the activity provided through the Blablacar platform with the intercity passenger transport service carried out by the plaintiff: "As it is not possible to compare the two, there is no way to consider unfair competition, because there isn't even competition.
According to Amadei, as there is no profit in the Blablacar app, "there is no need to talk about a transport contract either". The decision, unanimously, rejected the bus company's appeal and maintained the first instance sentence. In the judgment of Conflict of Jurisdiction 153,998, the ministers of the Special Court discussed which panel of the STJ should judge Conflict of Jurisdiction 149,622, in which both the federal tax execution court and the recovery court declared themselves competent to judge the suspension of the tax execution filed. in the case of a company undergoing judicial recovery in which assets are seized — the 1st Section, specialized in taxation and tax foreclosures, or the 2nd Section, specialized in bankruptcies and judicial recoveries. The rapporteur, minister Laurita Vaz, voted not to acknowledge the conflict, maintaining the competence of the 2nd Section.
In the context of private transport, the difference must also be established between the so-called “paid ride”, in which there is the intention of making a profit, as occurs in applications such as Uber, 99, Cabify, and “solidarity ride”, in which there is only the sharing of travel costs, with no intention of making a profit", stated the rapporteur. Amadei stated that, although the Blablacar platform has started a process of charging Honduras Mobile Number List users for subscriptions, this should not be confused with charging a fee for the transport itself. "This is mere remuneration for using the system and not a ticket charge, even as such amounts are not passed on to drivers", he added. For this reason, the judge stated that it was not possible to compare the activity provided through the Blablacar platform with the intercity passenger transport service carried out by the plaintiff: "As it is not possible to compare the two, there is no way to consider unfair competition, because there isn't even competition.
According to Amadei, as there is no profit in the Blablacar app, "there is no need to talk about a transport contract either". The decision, unanimously, rejected the bus company's appeal and maintained the first instance sentence. In the judgment of Conflict of Jurisdiction 153,998, the ministers of the Special Court discussed which panel of the STJ should judge Conflict of Jurisdiction 149,622, in which both the federal tax execution court and the recovery court declared themselves competent to judge the suspension of the tax execution filed. in the case of a company undergoing judicial recovery in which assets are seized — the 1st Section, specialized in taxation and tax foreclosures, or the 2nd Section, specialized in bankruptcies and judicial recoveries. The rapporteur, minister Laurita Vaz, voted not to acknowledge the conflict, maintaining the competence of the 2nd Section.