A ruling by the Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) annuls the rate of the Metropolitan Area of ??Barcelona (AMB) for rental vehicles with drivers, also known as VTC, which is not legally adjusted. intend to work in the conurbation of the Catalan capital. The AMB itself reported this judicial resolution through an announcement a few days ago.
The fact is that the fee in question is 500 euros. The AMB does not plan to appeal the TSJC ruling or return the amounts already collected. The matter is part of the conflict that the sector maintains with the Catalan institutions. These companies understand that the restrictions on their activity in Catalonia are disproportionate, much harsher than other regions. The lawsuit was filed by several fleets that usually provide their services through urban mobility applications, such as Vecttor, which is a subsidiary of Cabify, the application that thus offers more rental cars with drivers throughout the metropolitan area of ??Barcelona.
Vecctor and the rest of the companies that filed the administrative dispute alleged that the taxation agreement was not approved and published accordingly, that the rates applied by other administrations for this same concept are significantly lower, between 20 and 50 euros, and that the AMB’s previous report assumes that only 1,500 urban authorizations were going to be requested when in reality the number of VTC authorizations in the province was 2,721. “This figure is of great relevance because certain items of the economic technical report will be prorated based on a first error that only 1,500 urban authorizations will be requested,” can be read in the TSJC resolution.
Sources from the Institut Metropolità del Taxi (Imet) detail that the sentence is now final, “so that no appeal is appropriate. None of the procedural parties, including the AMB, considered it appropriate to file an appeal for cassation, or any other appeal, considering that the sentence did not require clarifications.”
Furthermore, Imet sources add, “the claim from which the aforementioned court ruling derives was limited to requesting the annulment of the tax ordinance, without including any request for annulment of the tax settlements. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated, the declaration of nullity of a general provision does not entail the annulment of the acts issued in application thereof that are firm and consented to.”