In the specific case, a bus company filed an appeal in the face of a sentence that dismissed the common rite action filed against a legal entity that has a joint ride application.
The 1st Chamber of Public Law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo (TJ-SP) in the judgment of Appeal 1044455-44.2018.8.26.0053 established an understanding that the free ride service is not to be confused with the free ride (individual paid private transport) passenger transport), nor with intercity passenger transportation, since there is only a division of travel costs, with no intention of profit, making it clear, also, that the users’ subscription charge refers to the remuneration for the use of the system and no ticket fees.
In the specific case, a bus company filed an appeal in the face of a sentence that dismissed the common rite lawsuit filed against a legal entity that owns a free ride application and the Regulatory Agency for Public Delegated Transport Services of the State of São Paulo (Artesp ), arguing, on the merits, that the purpose of the insurrection was that the company that owns the application prevented rides on its digital platform from being offered with a value higher than cost sharing, in the routes in which the appellant has the grant of the service of inter-municipal public transport, so that, according to the bus company, unfair competition is avoided, adding that Artesp has the duty to inspect the regulation of intermunicipal transport, since the application would, according to the appellant, provide irregular transportation of passengers, making a profit.
The rapporteur, Judge Vicente de Abreu Amadei, in his vote, explained that the emergence of solidarity hitchhike applications fits in the context of the sharing economy, and a difference should be fixed between this type of transportation in which there is only the division of travel costs. and individual private paid passenger transport, regulated with the changes brought to the legal system by Law No. 13,640 / 2018, in which there is a profitable purpose. In this sense, the rapporteur Judge dismissed the hypothesis of unfair competition, maintaining that “it is not possible to compare the activity provided through the platform […] with the intercity passenger transport activity carried out by the plaintiff [of the action]. If the comparison between the two is not possible, there is no way to consider unfair competition, as there is not even competition ”.
To dismiss the appeal of the bus company, it was also understood that in the specific case there is no transport contract, as there is no profit in the solidarity ride application, unlike what happens with the services provided by the intercity bus company, reaffirming itself it is understood that the purpose of this type of application is “only the division of the costs of long distance travel”, and is therefore not subject to the principles contained in the Urban Mobility Law.
Source: ClickJus
Contran Resolution No. 809/2020 came into force last Monday (04/01/2021)
The National Traffic Council (CONTRAN) through Resolution No. 809/2020, which came into effect on January 4, 2021, regulated the issuance of documents in digital media. In...
The specific case was a hypothesis in which the Regional Court upheld the sentence in which the condition of self-employed person to the driver using the...
