search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
from Spain


WORLDWIDE TAXI FOCUS from Brazil


EU COURT SLAMS BARCELONA’S STRICT TAXI-ON-DEMAND RULES


A European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling published on 8 June slammed Barcelona’s


strict private hire


vehicles rules as “contrary to EU law”, in a move that could have EU-wide repercussions. Barcelona is known for having one of the EU’s strictest laws governing private hire vehicles. All PHV services must obtain an additional licence before providing a service in the city. Also, the number of licences is capped at 1/30th


of the ride-hailing taxi service licences.


Prestige and Limousine SL, a luxury ride-on-demand company operating in Barcelona, sought the annulment of these laws before a national court, on the grounds that the local rules only existed to hinder PHVs’ activity and protect the interest of the Barcelonan taxi industry, the ECJ noted. Fifteen other companies, including international digital platforms, filed similar disputes before national courts. The matter was raised to the EU Court, which ruled that capping licences at 1/30th


of the taxi industry


licences not only breached the freedom of establishment but also did not help to attain Barcelona’s objectives of transport and traffic management and environmental protection. Such a legal requirement, the ECJ noted, failed to be proportional to the city’s objectives. The EU judges insisted that other, less strict measures could be implemented to achieve Barcelona’s double environmental protection and traffic reduction


objectives, including applying CO2 emissions limits to vehicles circulating in Barcelona and restricting PHVs’ operation hours. The ruling could have an impact far beyond the Catalan capital and other EU cities, as the ECJ stated that ensuring the economic viability of taxi services – as opposed to PHVs – falls short of constituting an overriding reason in the general interest that would justify a public policy in this sense. Jose Manuel Berzal, spokesman for trade union UNAUTO-VTC said: “The Spanish administration must adapt its regulations so that the number of licences is determined based on the mobility needs of citizens and environmental protection, and not based on the interests of the most radical minority of the taxis.”


72


£21M ACCIDENTALLY TRANSFERRED INTO BRAZILIAN CABBIE’S ACCOUNT


A taxi driver said he ‘got scared of all the zeros’ when a bank ac- cidentally sent him over £21m (which is R$ 131,870,227.00) when he only had just £37 in his account. Antônio Pereira do Nascimento, 58, from Palmas, capital of Tocantins state in central Brazil, said he was confused when he saw the amount in his bank because he doesn’t play the lottery. Antônio, who works as a tourist driver and has no fixed income, is married and has four children and 14 grandchildren, reported Banda B. “So many zeros appeared that I was really really scared! I’ve never seen money like that in my life and I never get it in my life, only if I win in the Mega-Sena [lottery], and I don’t play. So, it is difficult,” he said. The money ended up in his account due to a transfer error between two banks, the aforementioned title stated. “I went to my house and told my wife: ‘We got rich!’. But immediately my wife also said: ‘Let’s give it back’. I went looking for the bank, signed the paper and, at nine o’clock at night, the money left my account for their account,” he added. He said he never considered keeping the money. “I didn’t think for a second about doing evil. I am a very honest person and I only want what is mine,” he said. Legally, if a sum of money is accidentally paid into your bank or savings account and you know it doesn’t belong to you, then you must pay it back, Money.co.uk reports. If you do keep the money then you could be charged with ‘retaining wrongful credit’ under the Theft Act 1968.


And if you know that the credit has been made incorrectly and you don’t take steps to cancel the credit then you could fall foul of the rule.


JULY 2023 PHTM


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76