{"id":316,"date":"2024-06-03T11:21:45","date_gmt":"2024-06-03T11:21:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/?p=316"},"modified":"2024-08-16T03:44:12","modified_gmt":"2024-08-16T03:44:12","slug":"una-vez-mas-se-resuelve-que-el-gcba-no-puede-retener-licencias-de-conductores-que-utilizan-uber-pcyf-caba","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/una-vez-mas-se-resuelve-que-el-gcba-no-puede-retener-licencias-de-conductores-que-utilizan-uber-pcyf-caba\/","title":{"rendered":"Once Again It Is Ruled That The GCBA Cannot Withhold Uber Drivers\u2019 Licences (Criminal and Infractions Court, CABA)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On the 8th of May, 2019, in the case \u201c<em>Scianca, Mariano Horacio sobre 6.1.47- requisitos de los veh\u00edculos de transporte de pasajeros<\/em>\u201d, (CAU 39814\/2019-0), No. 15 Criminal and Infractions Court declared the proceedings null for not complying with the procedural requirements for injunctions. The Court also acquitted the driver due to the retention of his driver\u2019s licence by the Administrative Unit for Offence Control. The Court held that this retention was construed as a premature enforcement of the penalty, seeming to deal out a sanction before it became final, rather than serving the legitimate purpose of preventing the continuation of an offence. Furthermore, the Court declared that the licence could neither be withheld as a means of evidence, since this could easily and quickly be supplemented by a copy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:60px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-interactive=\"core\/file\" class=\"wp-block-file\"><object data-wp-bind--hidden=\"!state.hasPdfPreview\" hidden class=\"wp-block-file__embed\" data=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/10-ABSOLUCION-SCIANCA.pdf\" type=\"application\/pdf\" style=\"width:100%;height:600px\" aria-label=\"Embed of (10) ABSOLUCION SCIANCA.\"><\/object><a id=\"wp-block-file--media-53acffee-a37a-43b7-8d36-3e5dd3437c07\" href=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/10-ABSOLUCION-SCIANCA.pdf\">(10) ABSOLUCION SCIANCA<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/10-ABSOLUCION-SCIANCA.pdf\" class=\"wp-block-file__button wp-element-button\" download aria-describedby=\"wp-block-file--media-53acffee-a37a-43b7-8d36-3e5dd3437c07\">Descarga<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:60px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-media-text is-vertically-aligned-center has-background\" style=\"background-color:#f9f9f9;grid-template-columns:15% auto\"><figure class=\"wp-block-media-text__media\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"683\" src=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-99-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-1274 size-full\" srcset=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-99-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-99-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-99-768x512.jpg 768w, https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-99.jpg 1200w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/figure><div class=\"wp-block-media-text__content\">\n<p class=\"has-small-font-size\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.freepik.es\/foto-gratis\/persona-que-prepara-obtener-permiso-conduccion_94964375.htm#fromView=search&amp;page=2&amp;position=1&amp;uuid=de0ba8e5-c2ea-434f-a4eb-50f191b15a07\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">&#8211; Cr\u00e9ditos de imagen utilizada<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>En la causa \u201cScianca, Mariano Horacio sobre 6.1.47- requisitos de los veh\u00edculos de transporte de pasajeros\u201d, (CAU 39814\/2019-0), 23\/10\/19, el Juzgado PCyF 15 declar\u00f3 la nulidad del procedimiento por no cumplirse con el procedimiento previsto para el tr\u00e1mite de medidas [&hellip;]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[5,6],"tags":[86,88,94,98,96],"class_list":["post-316","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-jurisprudencia","category-jurisprudencia-de-caba","tag-absolucion","tag-adelantamiento-de-la-pena","tag-afectacion-al-derecho-de-defensa-en-juicio","tag-arbitrariedad-de-los-magistrados","tag-derecho-de-acceso-a-la-justicia"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/316","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=316"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/316\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3466,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/316\/revisions\/3466"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=316"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=316"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=316"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}