When the American company Uber established itself in France, it knowingly violated certain laws to facilitate its development. A situation deplored by some 90 taxi drivers, who joined a collective action brought in November 2017 against the French State. They accuse him of having shown “faulty inertia” and of “complacency” against the platform. Their claims dismissed by the Paris administrative court in 2021, the taxis appealed and are now awaiting a second judgment.
According to information from Monde, the government takes a surprising position on this issue. The statement in defense of the Ministry of Ecological Transition (which oversees transport) dated June 30, 2022, which we were able to consult, does not content itself with defending the means deployed by the State to enforce the laws: it rehabilitates the practices of the company Uber in France, seeming to ignore the various convictions of which the company has been the subject.
UberPop presented as a simple “ride-sharing” service
The plaintiff taxi drivers blame the state in particular for its management of the UberPop file. This service launched in 2014, which allowed any individual with a vehicle to act as a driver, was immediately opposed by taxi drivers – who saw in it unfair and illegal competition, since they themselves were subject to a much stricter framework. While the service was ultimately shut down by Uber in July 2015, the plaintiffs believe the state failed to deploy sufficient means to compel Uber to abide by the law at the time, allowing it to continue this illegal activity for almost a year and a half.
But the memorandum in defense of the Ministry of Ecological Transition, which develops the arguments of the State, disputes this version of the facts. Refuting the idea of unfair competition for taxis, the State considers that the UberPop service fell under article L. 3132-1 of the transport code, that is to say carpooling, and not activities taxis or VTC.
An offer that has been deemed illegal on several occasions
This argument, already developed by the State at first instance, contradicts the case law on the matter, which is nevertheless clear. A service of private drivers like UberPop cannot be considered as carpooling, in particular because it is carried out for consideration. If it is possible to share its road costs within the framework of carpooling, the objective of the drivers of UberPop was well to draw an income from it. The prices charged were also incomparable to those of carpooling platforms, for equivalent journeys.
You have 43.1% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.