{"id":388,"date":"2024-06-03T11:58:02","date_gmt":"2024-06-03T11:58:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/?p=388"},"modified":"2024-08-15T23:33:29","modified_gmt":"2024-08-15T23:33:29","slug":"uber-es-legal-en-cordoba-cca-cba","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/uber-es-legal-en-cordoba-cca-cba\/","title":{"rendered":"Uber Is Legal In C\u00f3rdoba (Administrative Litigation Court of C\u00f3rdoba)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On the 8th of May, 2019, in the case \u201c<em>Municipalidad de C\u00f3rdoba c\/ Uber y otros- Amparo (Ley 5125)<\/em>\u201d, File No. 870901, C\u00f3rdoba\u2019s Administrative Litigation Court understood that: (i) Ordinance 12.859 does not regulate Uber\u2019s services, but rather similar services like taxi services, remis (private taxi) services, and luxury car rentals; (ii) Uber is not a public service, but a private service, which is governed by the Commercial and Civil Code of the Nation; (iii) the lack of regulations does not equate to a prohibition of the service, and the Municipality cannot \u201crely\u201d on its failure to regulate (in fact, the court ordered it to enact regulation within 30 days); (iv) a de facto ban on Uber, as attempted by the Municipality, constitutes a violation of basic human rights by prohibiting a lawful and legal activity.&nbsp;<em>de facto<\/em>, como pretende hacer la municipalidad, viola derechos humanos b\u00e1sicos al proscribir una actividad l\u00edcita y legal.<\/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\/1-sentencia-cordoba-.pdf\" type=\"application\/pdf\" style=\"width:100%;height:600px\" aria-label=\"Embed of (1) sentencia cordoba.\"><\/object><a id=\"wp-block-file--media-52f5bce0-2364-480b-b4b3-a9c160d26f0a\" href=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/1-sentencia-cordoba-.pdf\">(1) sentencia cordoba<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/1-sentencia-cordoba-.pdf\" class=\"wp-block-file__button wp-element-button\" download aria-describedby=\"wp-block-file--media-52f5bce0-2364-480b-b4b3-a9c160d26f0a\">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-78-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-1215 size-full\" srcset=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-78-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-78-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-78-768x512.jpg 768w, https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-78.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\/vector-gratis\/ilustracion-concepto-viaje-compartido_28910691.htm#query=uber&amp;position=2&amp;from_view=search&amp;track=sph\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">&#8211; Cr\u00e9ditos de imagen utilizada<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>En la causa \u201cMunicipalidad de C\u00f3rdoba c\/ Uber y otros- Amparo (Ley 5125)\u201d, (Expte. N\u00b0 870901), 30\/10\/2020, la Justicia Contencioso Administrativa de C\u00f3rdoba entendi\u00f3 que: (i) la Ordenanza 12.859 no regula el servicio de Uber, sino servicios parecidos como el [&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":[24,5,13,25,21],"tags":[97,85,84,110,102,111],"class_list":["post-388","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-diferencias-con-el-taxi-y-el-remis","category-jurisprudencia","category-jurisprudencia-de-cordoba","category-servicio-de-transporte-privado-regulado-en-el-cccn","category-temas","tag-afectacion-del-regimen-federal","tag-diferencias-con-el-taxi-y-el-remis","tag-legalidad","tag-plataforma-de-intermediacion","tag-revolucion-tecnologica","tag-servicio-de-transporte-privado-regulado-en-el-cccn"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388","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=388"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3443,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388\/revisions\/3443"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=388"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=388"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=388"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}