{"id":1697,"date":"2016-07-22T07:23:36","date_gmt":"2016-07-22T07:23:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ratinglegis.eu\/ca\/?p=1697"},"modified":"2016-12-12T20:14:47","modified_gmt":"2016-12-12T20:14:47","slug":"uber-presta-serveis-de-transport","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ratinglegis.eu\/ca\/uber-presta-serveis-de-transport\/","title":{"rendered":"Jurisprud\u00e8ncia UB\u00c8Rrima"},"content":{"rendered":"

El servei d\u2019inspecci\u00f3 t\u00e8cnica de vehicles (ITV<\/strong>) \u00e9s incl\u00f2s en l\u2019\u00e0mbit del \u201ctransport\u201d i, per tant, excl\u00f2s del d\u2019aplicaci\u00f3 de la Directiva de Serveis<\/a>? Aquesta \u00e9s la q\u00fcesti\u00f3 prejudicial que el Tribunal Suprem (TS) va plantejar al Tribunal de Just\u00edcia de la Uni\u00f3 Europea (TJUE) en l\u2019Assumpte C-168\/14, Grupo Itevelsa i altres c\/ OCA i Generalitat<\/em><\/a>, a la llum del qual dict\u00e0 la seva sent\u00e8ncia del proppassat 21 d\u2019abril<\/a>.<\/p>\n

El contenci\u00f3s t\u00e9 les seves arrels a la Llei 12\/2008<\/a>, de seguretat industrial. La Generalitat hi limit\u00e0 l\u2019acc\u00e9s al servei d\u2019inspecci\u00f3, i hom est\u00e0 processant gent que hi rondinava per presumptes cobraments a canvi de promoure aquesta llei.<\/p>\n

En primera inst\u00e0ncia, el Tribunal Superior de Just\u00edcia de Catalunya (TSJ) anul\u00b7l\u00e0<\/a> el pla territorial<\/a> de noves estacions d\u2019ITV de Catalunya i part del decret<\/a> que desenvolupa la Llei 12\/2008. Segons el TSJ, les restriccions del r\u00e8gim d\u2019autoritzaci\u00f3 d\u2019acc\u00e9s a la prestaci\u00f3 de serveis de ITV no complien pas els requisits de necessitat i proporcionalitat<\/strong> que imposa la Directiva de Serveis.<\/p>\n

Ja davant del TSJ, la Generalitat al\u00b7leg\u00e0 que la Directiva \u00e9s inaplicable a les activitats d\u2019ITV perqu\u00e8 decidir si un vehicle compleix la normativa \u00e9s exercir poder p\u00fablic. El TJUE, per\u00f2, havia rebutjat aquesta genial idea un any abans en l\u2019Assumpte C-438\/08, Comissi\u00f3 c\/ Portugal<\/em><\/a>, tot declarant el r\u00e8gim lusit\u00e0 d\u2019autoritzaci\u00f3 d\u2019acc\u00e9s a l\u2019activitat d\u2019ITV incompatible amb la llibertat d\u2019establiment<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Els dubtes del TS, en canvi, mereixeren una altra resposta del TJUE<\/a> (punts 46 i s.): la ITV \u00e9s un requisit \u201cprevi i imprescindible<\/em>\u201d per a l\u2019activitat del transport i constitueix, doncs, un \u201cservei inherentment lligat a aquesta activitat<\/em>\u201d. Per tant, la ITV \u00e9s un servei excl\u00f2s de la Directiva de Serveis<\/strong>, tot i romandre sotm\u00e8s a la normativa de llibertat d\u2019establiment directament en virtut del TFUE.<\/p>\n

Caldr\u00e0 matisar aquesta definici\u00f3 en el marc dels nous models de negoci de l\u2019economia col\u00b7laborativa<\/a>. A m\u00e9s del portador i l\u2019usuari, hi apareix la figura de l\u2019intermediari, i ja s\u2019est\u00e0 debatent a fons si la Directiva de Serveis hi \u00e9s o no aplicable. De fet, ja ens ho dir\u00e0 el TJUE<\/strong>: fa tot just un any el Jutjat Mercantil n\u00ba3 de Barcelona va plantejar una q\u00fcesti\u00f3 prejudicial<\/a> sobre si cal considerar com a serveis en l\u2019\u00e0mbit del transport la intermediaci\u00f3 d\u2019Uber<\/a><\/strong> entre el conductor d\u2019un vehicle i l\u2019usuari. Sense cap mena de dubte, el TJUE aplicar\u00e0 en l’Assumpte C-434\/15, \u00c9lite c\/ Uber<\/em><\/a>, els criteris d\u2019interpretaci\u00f3 que ha desenvolupat en els dos assumptes sobre la ITV.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

El servei d\u2019inspecci\u00f3 t\u00e8cnica de vehicles (ITV) \u00e9s incl\u00f2s en l\u2019\u00e0mbit del \u201ctransport\u201d i, per tant, excl\u00f2s del d\u2019aplicaci\u00f3 de la Directiva de Serveis? Aquesta \u00e9s la q\u00fcesti\u00f3 prejudicial que […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[692,841,844,843,694,695,845,842,413,565,345,691,409,689,693],"class_list":["post-1697","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sin-categoria","tag-directiva-de-serveis","tag-economia-collaborativa","tag-europa","tag-inspeccio-tecnica","tag-itv","tag-pujol","tag-quatre-llibertats","tag-queestio-prejudicial","tag-sentencia","tag-sharing-economy","tag-tjue","tag-transport","tag-tribunal-de-justicia","tag-uber","tag-unio-europea"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ratinglegis.eu\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1697","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ratinglegis.eu\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ratinglegis.eu\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ratinglegis.eu\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ratinglegis.eu\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1697"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/ratinglegis.eu\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1697\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1840,"href":"https:\/\/ratinglegis.eu\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1697\/revisions\/1840"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ratinglegis.eu\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1697"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ratinglegis.eu\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1697"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ratinglegis.eu\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1697"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}