City of Buenos Aires
-
Proceedings Are Declared Null Due To Premature Enforcement Of Penalty
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
-
Proceedings Are Declared Null Due To Their Provocation By An Entrapment Agent
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
-
Retention Of Licence Is Declared Null
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
-
Another Acquittal Due To Wrongful Retention Of Licence
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
-
Criminal Action Against Uber Is Declared Over
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
-
Acquittal Due To Violation Of Right To A Fair Trial By Not Recording Passenger Details
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
-
Activity Carried Out On Uber Is Not A Public Service (Sole Regulatory Body of Public Services, CABA)
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
-
Uber Does Not Violate The Offence Of Unlawful Commercial Use Of Public Space For Profit (High Court of Justice, CABA)
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
-
Driving Using Uber Is Not A Violation (High Court of Justice, CABA)
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
-
It Is Unconstitutional To Block Uber’s Website And Application (High Court of Justice, CABA)
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
-
It Is Unconstitutional To Block Uber’s Website And Application (High Court of Justice, CABA)
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
-
Retention Of A Licence Is A Premature Enforcement Of A Penalty (Criminal and Infractions Court, CABA)
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
-
Without Passenger Identification, There Cannot Be A Conviction For Providing A Transportation Service “Without Authorization” (Criminal and Infractions Court, CABA)
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
-
Once Again It Is Ruled That, Without Passenger Identification, There Cannot Be A Conviction For Providing A Transportation Service “Without Authorization” (Criminal and Infractions Court, CABA)
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
-
It Is Ruled That Without Passenger Identification There Cannot Be A Conviction For Providing A Transportation Service “Without Authorization” (Criminal and Infractions Court, CABA)
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
-
It Is Reiterated That, Without Passenger Identification, There Can Be No Conviction for Providing A Transportation Service “Without Authorization” (Criminal and Infractions Court, CABA)
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
-
The GCBA Cannot Withhold Uber Drivers’ Licences (Criminal and Infractions Court, CABA)
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
-
For The Second Time, It Is Ruled That The GCBA Cannot Withhold Uber Drivers’ Licences (Criminal and Infractions Court, CABA)
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
-
Once Again It Is Ruled That The GCBA Cannot Withhold Uber Drivers’ Licences (Criminal and Infractions Court, CABA)
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
-
It Is Ruled That The GCBA Cannot Withhold Uber Drivers’ Licences (Criminal and Infractions Court, CABA)
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
-
CABA’s “Anti-Uber Law” Does Not Prohibit Driving User The Application Uber (Criminal and Infractions Court, CABA)
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
-
A New Precedent Determines That CABA’s “Anti-Uber Law” Does Not Prohibit Driving Using the Application Uber (Criminal and Infractions Court, CABA)
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
-
A Fifth Precedent Determines That Driving Using Uber Is Perfectly Legal (Criminal and Infractions Court, CABA)
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
-
A Fourth Precedent Determines That Driving Using Uber Is Perfectly Legal (Criminal and Infractions Court, CABA)
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
-
A Third Precedent Determines That Driving Using Uber Is Perfectly Legal (Criminal and Infractions Court, CABA)
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
-
A Second Precedent Determines That Driving Using Uber Is Perfectly Legal (Criminal and Infractions Court, CABA)
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
-
Driving Using Uber Is Perfectly Legal (Criminal and Infractions Court, CABA)
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
-
Those Who Drive Using Uber Are Not Providing a Remis (Private Taxi) Service (Criminal and Infractions Court, CABA)
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