En la causa “Escobar Marcos Antonio” el Juzgado Municipal de Faltas No. 2, el 28/05/2025 sobreseyó al imputado al estimar que la conducta que se describia en el acta de

En la causa “Vergara Ruis Tomás”, el Juzgado Municipal de Faltas No. 2, el 01/07/2025 sobreseyó al imputado, acusado de prestar un servicio de traslado de pasajeros sin habilitación, en

En la causa “Benitez Darío Nahuel”, el Juzgado Municipal de Faltas No. 2, el 28/07/2025 sobreseyó al imputado al estimar que la conducta que se describia en el acta de

En la causa “Olivera Teresa Ester”, el Juzgado Municipal de Faltas No. 2, el 28/07/2025 sobreseyó al imputado al considerar que la actividad constatada en el acta de infracción resultaba

En la causa “Escobar Marcos Antonio” el Juzgado Municipal de Faltas No. 2, el 28/05/2025 sobreseyó al imputado al estimar que la conducta que se describia en el acta de

En la causa “Martins Ulises Ariel” el Juzgado Municipal de Faltas No. 1, el 26/01/2025, sobreseyó a un conductor que utilizaba Uber para prestar servicios de transporte, al estimar que

En la causa “Frutos Julio Cesar Emanuel” el Juzgado Municipal de Faltas No. 1 el 14/04/2025, dictó el sobreseimiento del imputado al estimar que la conducta no era pasible de

On the 1st of August, 2024, in the case “Dos Santos Eliseo”, the No. 3 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted an UberMoto driver against whom an infringement report had been filed

On the 14th of March, 2025, in the case “Scholles Elvio Argentino”, the No. 2 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted an UberMoto driver against whom an infringement report had been filed

On the 19th of September, 2024, in the case “Salort Mateo Emiliano”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted an UberMoto driver against whom an infringement report had been filed

On the 14th of April, 2025, in the case “Rotela Julio César”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court concluded that, as of that day, Ordinance XVI N° 116

On the 14th of April. 2025, in the case “Benitez Gabriel Fernando”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted an Uber driver for providing transportation services. The Court held that,

On the 2nd of August, 2024, in the case “Sosa Elías Daniel”, No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted an Uber driver who had been served an infringement report for

On the 7th of November, 2024, in the case “Sotelo Rubén Antonio”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court, acquitted the defendant. The Court found that, although the Registry of Service Providers mentioned

On the 7th of November, 2024, in the case “Servian Tamara Soledad”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court issued another acquittal for an UberMoto driver. The Court pointed out

On the 12th of November, 2024, in the case “Balbuena Walter Gustavo”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court dismissed an infringement report filed against an UberMoto driver. The Court held that

On the 5th of December, 2024, in the case “Mieres Walter Cristián”, the No. 2 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted an UberMoto driver. The Court held that motorcycles were not encompassed

On the 2nd of December, 2024, in the case “La Fuente Raúl Enrique”, the No. 2 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the accused UberMoto driver. The Court held that the motorcycle used

On the 3rd of October, 2024, in the case “Caballero Marisol Itatí”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court held that: (i) as of that day, no regulation

On the 6th of December, 2024, in the case “Kuzli Gustavo Alfredo”, the No. 2 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the defendant upon considering that an act that does not count as an

On the 25th of November, 2024, in the case “Benítez Lucas”, the No. 3 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the defendant on the grounds that UberMoto’s activity has not been regulated. To that end,

On the 25th of November, 2024, in the case “Ruiz Días Facundo Abel”, the No. 3 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted a driver against whom an infringement report had been filed.

On the 25th of November, 2024, in the case “Torres Alejandro Fermín”, the No. 3 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the defendant on the grounds that Ordinance XVI N° 116 does not

On the 12th of November, 2024, in the case “Fernandez Fraga Maximiliano Hernán”, the No. 3 Municipal Infractions Court emphasised that, as of that day, no regulation existed

On the 23rd of October, 2024, in the case “Mendieta Braian Federico”, the No. 2 Municipal Infractions Court dismissed the infringement report since the copy submitted to the defendant lacked a certain date

On the 7th of October, 2024, in the case “Vallejos Marcos Ezequiel”, the No. 2 Municipal Infractions Court noted that municipal regulations clearly state that authorised transportation providers should be holders of

On the 2nd of October, 2024, in the case “Gonzalez Cristián Fernando”, the No. 2 Municipal Infractions Court decided that another UberMoto driver should be acquitted on the grounds that the motorcycle, which

On the 2nd of October, 2024, in the case “Mückenheim Miguel Maximiliano”, the No. 2 Municipal Infractions Court dismissed another UberMoto driver on the grounds that motorcycles do not fall under the

On the 2nd of October, 2024, in the case “Medina Alan Roger”, the No. 2 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the defendant, an UberMoto driver, upon noting that the act in question could not be

On the 2nd of October, 2024, in the case “Piris Néstor Gabriel”, the No. 2 Municipal Infractions Court considered that, in this case, the act described in the infringement report could not

On the 2nd of October, 2024, in the case “Procacci Federico Emmanuel”, the No. 2 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted a driver upon considering that the act in question was not described as an infraction

On the 2nd of October, 2024, in the case “Martínez Héctor Ezequiel”, the No. 2 Municipal Infractions Court explained that the infractions procedure starts when an Official verifies an act

On the 2nd of October, 2024, in the case “Ludojoski Luis Iván”, the No. 2 Municipal Infractions Court considered that a motorcycle does not have the capacity to carry multiple passengers, a characteristic pertaining to

On the 1st of October, 2024, in the case “Paredes Antonio César”, the No. 2 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the defendant since it was considered that the “service of transporting passengers by motorcycle” is not

On the 1st of October, 2024, in the case “Ferreyra Oscar Manuel”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court dismissed the infringement report filed against the defendant due to a lack of certainty

On the 1st of October, 2024, in the case “Neumann Natalia Elizabet”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the defendant due to the lack of regulation regarding Ordinance XVI N° 116.

On the 30th of September, 2024, in the case “Patzer Gerardo Maximiliano”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the driver upon considering that the act mentioned in the report - “transporting passengers

On the 25th of September, 2024, in the case “Rodríguez María Elizabet”, the No. 2 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted an UberMoto driver. The Court considered that a motorcycle does not fall under the

On the 23rd of September, 2024, in the case “Cabaña Gladys Ester”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the defendant. The Court considered that, as of that day, no

On the 23rd of September, 2024, in the case “Pucheta Maximiliano Ramón”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the defendant on the grounds that, at that time, Ordinance XVI N° 116

On the 23rd of September, 2024, in the case “Dupouy Gabriel Angel”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the defendant. The Court noted that at that time Ordinance XVI N° 116

On the 16th of September, 2024, in the case “González Catriel de Jesús”, the No. 3 Municipal Infractions Court in Posadas acquitted the defendant on the grounds that at that time

On the 12th of August, 2024, in the case “Benitez Raúl Hector”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the defendant upon considering that the act mentioned in the report, “transporting passengers

On the 20th of August, 2024, in the case “Lamberg Walter Daniel”, the No. 1 Administrative Infractions Court acquitted the defendant, underlining that at that time Ordinance

On the 14th of August, 2024, in the case “Gutierrez Elsa Augstina”, the No. 1 Administrative Infractions Court acquitted the defendant, who drove using the Uber platform. The Court considered that

On the 14th of August, 2024, in the case “Lugo César Gabriel”, the No. 2 Administrative Infractions Court acquitted the defendant. The Court held that, since the defendant did not comply with any

On the 10th of June, 2024, in the case “Ríos Jonathan Ricardo Damián”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the accused driver. The Court pointed out that in the infringement report the defendant was accused of “providing passenger

On the 17th of May, 2024, in the case “Arguello Balbuena Leidy Andrea”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court declared the driver innocent of the accused infraction. At that time,

On the 17th of May, 2024, in the case “Diaz Ramón Eduardo”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the defendant on the grounds that Ordinance XVI N° 109 was not regulated.

On the 17th of May, in the case “Da Silva Jorge Nestor”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court declared the defendant innocent. The Court pointed out - with a clear reference to the principle established in

On the 15th of May, 2024, in the case “Rocha Carlos Javier”, the No. 1 Infractions Court acquitted the driver involved in the act in question. The Court held that Ordinance XVI N° 109 was not yet

On the 14th of May, 2024, in the case “Moreira Lucas Emanuel”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the defendant on the grounds that, at that time, it was not established what kind of

On the 14th of May, 2025, in the case “Zartini Hernan”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the defendant. The Court noted that it was prohibited to apply sanctions by analogy to the case at hand

On the 14th of May, 2024, in the case “Mancuello Jorge Sebastián”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the defendant on the grounds that the act in question recorded as an infraction cannot be punished

On the 15th of May, 2024, in the case “Lovera Oscar Rolando”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the alleged defendant. The Court held

On the 20th of August, 2024, in the case “Granada Navarro Kerly”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the defendant, an UberMoto driver. The Court based this decision on the grounds that Ordinance XVI N°

On the 2nd of August, 2024, in the case “Salvo Alejandro Renee”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted an Uber driver noting that, on one hand,

On the 8th of July, 2024, in the case “Silva Lucas Ezequiel”, the No. 2 Municipal Infractions Court once again acquitted an UberMoto driver. The Court held that his conduct was not

On the 5th of July, 2024, in the case “Do Santos Esteban Miguel”, the No. 2 Municipal Infractions Court once again acquitted the defendant of the charge

On the 12th of June, 2024, in the case “Carballo Santiago Emmanuel”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court dismissed the infringement report filed against an UberMoto driver since the act in

On the 15th of May, 2024, in the case “Ramírez Da Silva Cristian Natanael”, the No. 1 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted a driver on the grounds that: (i) any charge or oversight must be classified

On the 17th of April, 2024, in the case “Villalba Oscar David”, the No. 3 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the defendant upon finding out that “the lack of municipal regulation

On the 27th of March, 2024, in the case “Vega Jorge Maximiliano”, the No. 2 Municipal Infractions Court acquitted the defendant. The Court could not consider a motorcycle as a passenger, or cargo, transportation vehicle

On the 2nd of November, 2022, in the case “Julian, Carlos Nahuel Acta de Infrac. art. Nº 87 Ord.. X-W 5”, (ruling 3277/2022), the Court held that no regulation existed that prohibited the conduct employed

On the 14th of December, 2022, in the case “Acta de infracción Nº 95- Kommers Juan Carlo- s/ infrac. Art. Nº 87 Ord X N 5 D.M.”, (ruling: 5643/2022), the Court upheld the ruling

On the 15th of December, 2022, in the case “Acta de infracción N 134 Tatare Marcelo Alejandro S/infracc. Art. N 85 ORD. X N 5 D.M”, (ruling 5655/2022), the Court upheld the ruling

On the 15th of December, 2022, in the case “Acta de infracción N 069 – Esquivel Francisco Horacio S/Infracción Art. N 87 ORD.X N 5 D.M.”, the Court upheld the ruling from the previous

On the 15th of December, 2022, in the case “Acta de infracción N 67 Dublece Netto Juan Carlos S/infracc. Art. N 87 de la Ord.X N 5 D.M”, (ruling 5650/2022), the Court upheld the ruling

In the case “Snaider Rodolfo – Acta de infracción N° 75 s/infrac. Art. 5 Inc. M – ORD. XVI – N9 17 D.M.”, the judge ruled to dismiss considering that: (i)

In the case “Ramirez Sergio Carlos – Acta de infracción N° 124 s/infrac. Art. 5 Inc. M – ORD. XVI – N2 17 D.M.”, the Judge ruled to dismiss considering

In the case “Valdez Lucas Gabriel – Acta de infracción l\T 74 s/infrac. Art. 5 Inc. M – ORD. XVI – Na 17 D.M.”, the Judge ruled to dismiss considering

On the 28th of February, 2023, in the case “Carvallo Lucas Gastón s/recurso de apelación”, (file No. 21/2.023), the Court declared null the proceedings - and, by extension, the sentence - for the defendant’s right to a fair trial having been violated.

On the 29th of May, 2023, in the case “González Ernesto Patricio Acta de Infracción N° 2709 s/ infrac. Art. N° 87 ORD. X-N° 5”, (Case No. 484/G/2023), the Municipal Infractions Court rejected

In the case “Bitencourt Villalba Beatriz Alejandra – Acta de infracción N° 2376 s/infrac. Art. 5 Inc. M – ORD. XVI – N 17 D.M.”, the Judge ruled to dismiss considering

In the case “Oporto Luis Hernan – Acta de infracción N° 2377 s/infrac. Art. 5 Inc. M – ORD. XVI – N 17 D.M.”, the Judge ruled to dismiss considering

In the case “Zidorak Carlos Alberto – Acta de infracción N° 44 s/infrac. Art. 5 Inc. M – ORD. XVI – N 17 D.M.”, the Judge ruled to dismiss considering

In the case “Viera Da Silva Mario Ruben – Acta de infracción N° 2384 s/infrac. Art. 5 Inc. M – ORD. XVI – N 17 D.M.”, the Judge ruled to dismiss

En la causa “Parejas Christian Arturo - Acta de infracción N° 210 s/infrac. Art. 5 Inc. M - ORD. XVI - N 17 D.M.”, el juez resuelve sobreseer considerando que:

In the case “Acuña Marcelo Rodolfo – Acta de infracción N° 2714 s/infrac. Art. 5 Incs. M, R, W – ORD. XVI – N 17 D.M.”, the Judge ruled to dismiss