On the 4th of September, 2023, in the case “Mejia Silva, Luis David sobre 6.1.47 – requisitos de los vehículos de transporte de pasajeros”, (case No. 108976/2023), the First Instance Court No. 13 in Criminal, Infractions, and Regulatory Matters declared null the proceedings

On the 28th of November, 2017, in the case “Marquez, Jose Bonifacio s/art. 1472:83 – Usar indebidamente el espacio público c/ fines lucrativos”, (case No. 258505/2017), the proceedings were declared null for

On the 30th of March, 2022, in the case “Crocci, Albano sobre 6.1.47 – requisitos de los vehículos de transporte de pasajeros”, (CAU 26630/2022-0), all proceedings at the administrative stage were declared null because

On the 2nd of October, 2019, in the case “Ojeda Eduardo Juan sobre 6.1.44 transporte de pasajeros”, (CAU 39237/2019-0), the Court acquitted the defendant and declared null the administrative ruling

On the 6th of December, 2019, in the case “Incidente de requerimiento a juicio en autos: Uber, Uber y otros sobre 1° ley 26.735 – art. 1°- evasión simple. ley 26.735 (modificación ley 24.769)”, (Expte. INC 15712/2016-10), the City of Buenos Aires initiated

On the 8th of March, 2021, in the case “Quisbert Choque, David Fernando sobre 6.1.47 – requisitos de los vehículos de transporte de pasajeros”, (CAU 3859/2020-0), the Court acquitted the defendant

On the 2nd of July, 2020, in the case “Sindicato de peones de taxis de la capital federal y otros contra ministro de desarrollo urbano y transporte y otros sobre otras demandas contra autoridad administrativa – genérico”, (File No. 3065/2016-0), the representative for the Sole

In the case “Uber y otros sobre 83 -Usar indebidamente el espacio público c/fines lucrativos (no autorizados)”, (File No. 17480/19), the Court upheld the ruling of Chamber II of the Criminal

On the 10th of February, 2021, in the case “Sajoux, Nicolás y otros s/ queja por recurso de inconstitucionalidad denegado en: ‘Nicolás Sajoux (UBER) s/ infr. art. 83, usar indebidamente el espacio público c/ fines lucrativos (no autorizadas)’”, (File No, 15859/18), the Court acquitted

On the 15th of August, 2019, in the case “UBER s/ queja por recurso de inconstitucionalidad denegado en: ‘Incidente de apelación en autos: UBER y otros s/ art. 83, usar indebidamente el espacio público

On the 18th of June, 2018, in the case “NN (UBER) s/ queja por recurso de inconstitucionalidad denegado en: ‘Incidente de apelación por clausura/bloqueo de página web en todo el país en autos: NN

On the 27th September, 2022, in the case “Incidente de apelación en autos Perez Ramos, Miguel Angel sobre 6.1.44 – Transporte de pasajeros”, (INC 136886/2021-1), the Second Chamber revoked the initial

On the 29th of March. 2021, in the case “Yacuzzi, Javier Pablo sobre 6.1.47 – Requisitos de los vehículos de transporte de pasajeros”, (CAU 46571/2019-0), the First Chamber revoked

In the case “Maciel, Oscar sobre 6.1.47 – Requisitos de los Vehículos de Transporte de Pasajeros”, (CAU 38237/2019), the First Chamber revoked the initial ruling that charged a driver for providing passenger transportation services without

On the 3rd of December, 2019, in the case “Mercedes Cano, Yan Carlos Alberto sobre 4.1.7- taxis, transportes escolares y remises sin autorización”, (CAU 19291/2019-0), the First Chamber revoked the initial ruling that charged a driver for providing passenger transportation

On the 8th of November, 2019, in the case “Hussen Miriam Fabiana sobre 6.1.44 – Transporte de pasajeros”, (CAU 20815/2019), the First Chamber revoked the initial ruling that charged a driver

On the 8th of May, 2020, in the case “Ledesma, Alejandro José sobre 6.1.47- requisitos de los vehículos de transporte de pasajeros”, (CAU 55700/2019-0),No. 9 Criminal and Infractions Court declared the proceedings null for not complying with the

On the 2nd of October, 2019, in the case “Brozzoni, Hugo Argentino sobre 6.1.47 – requisitos de los vehículos de transporte de pasajeros”, (CAU 38431/2019-0), No. 13 Criminal and Infractions Court declared the proceedings null for not complying with the procedural

On the 23rd of October, 2019, in the case “Scianca, Mariano Horacio sobre 6.1.47- requisitos de los vehículos de transporte de pasajeros”, (CAU 39814/2019-0), No. 15 Criminal and Infractions Court declared the proceedings null for not complying with the procedural requirements

On the 2nd of October, 2019, in the case “Granados Meneses, Miguel Angel sobre 6.1.47 – requisitos de los vehículos de transporte de pasajeros”, (CAU 38510/2019-0), No. 15 Criminal and Infractions Court declared the proceedings null for not complying with

On the 15th of May, 2020, in the case “Gutierrez Aguilar, Raelzo José sobre 6.1.47- Requisitos de los vehículos de transporte de pasajeros”, (CAU 904/2020-0), No. 8 Criminal and Infractions Court acquitted the driver of the charge of operating without the authorization

On the 8th of May, 2020, in the case “Faccio, Marcelo Raúl sobre 6.1.47- requisitos de los vehículos de transporte de pasajeros”, (CAU 2224/2020-0), No. 28 Criminal and Infractions Court acquitted the driver

On the 27th of November, 2018, in the case “Corrales, Jonathan Facundo sobre 6.1.4 – Categoría de licencia para conducir”, (CAU 26217/2018-0), No. 14 Criminal and Infractions Court acquitted the driver. This ruling was based

On the 28th of November, 2018, in the case “Bellini Marco, Alfredo sobre 6.1.49 bis – Prestación de servicio público de taxis sin habilitación”, (CAU 27617/2018), No. 7 Criminal and Infractions Court acquitted the driver.This ruling was

On the 28th of November, 2018, in the case “Gimeno, Jacinto Aníbal sobre 6.1.53 – Estacionamiento medido”, (CAU 25862/2018), No. 7 Criminal and Infractions Court acquitted the driver. This ruling was based on the understanding that: (i) there is no specific regulation

On the 23rd of November, 2021, in the case “López, Roxana Edith sobre 4.1.22- Exhibición de documentación obligatoria”, (CAU 7384/2020-0), No. 7 Criminal and Infractions Court acquitted a driver. This ruling was based

On the 25th June, 2019, in the case “Yovino, Augusto sobre 6.1.49 – Requisitos de los vehículos de transporte de carga y de pasajeros”, (CAU 3107/2019-0), No. 7 Criminal and Infractions Court acquitted an Uber driver. This ruling was based on the understanding that: (i) there is no specific

On the 3rd of February, 2017, in the case “Quevedo, Cristian Damian s/ Infracción artículo 6.1.52 de la Ley 451”, (Expte. 11465/2016), No. 31 Criminal and Infractions Court acquitted an Uber driver who had been dealt an