A ruling by the Justice system has sided with the taxi drivers of Santa Cruz de Tenerife, declaring that Mayor José Manuel Bermúdez and Councilor for Mobility, Evelyn Alonso, do not have the authority to establish the days off schedule for the city’s taxis. The decision, issued on January 31 by the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC), Second Section, and notified on February 26, currently nullifies the scheduled breaks for the taxi sector approved in January of this year.
During a meeting of the City Council’s control commission, Councilor Evelyn Alonso stated that “the municipal legal services are reviewing the TSJC ruling, which currently hinders the continuation of the established calendar for taxi operations, requiring 80% of vehicles on the road with two days off weekly.”
Alonso also mentioned that “following a challenge by the taxi union, represented by Élite Taxi, the implementation of days off has been halted, requiring approval from the full City Council for the decree, not just from a councilor. This situation affects not only our municipality but also others in the Canary Islands, such as La Laguna.”
Patricia Hernández, the socialist spokesperson, pointed out that “the Justice system is now questioning the activity calendar, and neither you (referring to Alonso) nor the mayor have the authority to make decisions without approval from the municipal plenary session.” She inquired about the steps that will be taken to address the sector’s issue, to which Alonso responded that “we are considering whether to file an appeal.”
The TSJC ruling, obtained by DIARIO DE AVISOS, partially dismisses the City Council’s appeal against the administrative dispute filed by Élite Taxi in 2021, rejecting the decree established by the former councilor, Dámaso Arteaga, regulating the taxi shift system during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The court emphasized that “although the municipal administration is competent to regulate such matters, not all bodies within it can establish rules; this authority lies exclusively with the plenary session of the Corporation and not with the mayor, the Local Government Board, or any individual councilor.”
Thus, the ruling, which does not impose costs on the City Council, partially grants the appeal due to “the failure to address the illegality of article 24.1 of the municipal ordinance regulating the Rental Vehicle Service with Taximeter Apparatus concerning regulatory power delegation.”
