The Supreme Court established in a ruling that VTC vehicle companies can provide transportation services for small goods and not just passengers. The litigation judges ruled in favor of a Cabify group company against the Community of Madrid’s ban on ceasing to offer its small goods transport service. The Madrid executive, criticizes the Supreme Court, “has not presented any reason or argument that can support a restriction like the one it advocates, which is neither appropriate nor reasonable, which is why it must be considered as contrary to the right to freedom of expression.” business”.
A month after the start of the coronavirus pandemic, Cabify began providing its parcel service through its subsidiary Prestige&Limousine via the “Envíos by PyL” system. At that time it was already in conflict with the Community of Madrid to be able to provide this service without exposing itself to sanctions and the last notice arrived at the end of that year: a request from the regional administration to cease immediately this service for small packages.
The Supreme Court confirms what the Superior Court of Madrid has already said: that the administration of Isabel Díaz Ayuso did not justify its ban in the face of a viable transport possibility for a car that already has a VTC license. “There is no express prohibition in the regulations,” the judges say, that these cars can provide this service. It is an option, they add, which “is viable”.
The laws “clearly authorize” these vehicles to transport passengers but also luggage and other different objects provided that “this is compatible with the characteristics of the vehicle and does not involve unjustified inconvenience or inconvenience for travelers”. And these objects do not necessarily have to be the property of the travelers and necessarily their luggage.
The Supreme Court adds that “the Community of Madrid has not put forward any reason or argument to support a restriction such as that which it advocates, which is neither appropriate nor reasonable, which is why it must be considered contrary to the right to freedom. business and the guarantee of market unity.
