The Tenerife Taxi Guild Association is back in court with a third administrative dispute against the Santa Cruz City Council, this time over the modifications made to the municipal ordinance that governs this sector’s activities, approved on January 3, 2024. In total, the plaintiffs are contesting 16 articles and an additional provision, aiming to achieve a fair balance between the council and the taxi drivers in terms of their obligations and rights.
The second section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) has notified the decree, dated March 27, 2024, to the Department of Mobility, which was published recently in the Official Gazette of the Province (BOP). The period is now open for those with a legitimate interest to support the provisions being challenged. “We invite other associations to join us in this endeavour,” the Guild announced.
The president of the association, Zebenzui Pérez, explained to DIARIO DE AVISOS that “the city council is regulating aspects such as the relationship between the contracting party and the contracted party, mandating a single salaried driver and enforcing a specific contracting model, as outlined in articles 14 and 15. This has been an ongoing issue for over a decade and needs to be addressed. Additionally, the requirements stated in article 16, where municipal license holders wishing to switch to a vehicle with 6 or more seats are mandated to provide services for people with reduced mobility (PMR). While we acknowledge the importance of this service, it should be encouraged, promoted, and monitored rather than being made compulsory,” he stated.
Another article being contested is article 5, which pertains to the salaried driver. “This provision is crucial for ensuring job security in the profession, particularly in preventing the loss of accreditation after five years of inactivity, as well as objecting to the biennial frequency of exams set by the city council. If a doctor or a teacher does not lose their professional status due to inactivity, why should a taxi driver?” Pérez questioned, suggesting that “exams should be conducted annually or biannually based on the industry’s needs.”
He further highlighted that “several other articles are deemed counterproductive, unnecessarily restrictive, and disproportionately punitive, such as those concerning advertising in taxis (art. 20); the responsible body (art. 2); the utilization of leave due to medical reasons (art. 10); instances of temporary suspension (art. 11); grounds for revocation (art. 12); the absence of a provision for active retirement (art. 13); or violations and penalties for drivers and owners (art. 43 and 45, respectively), the latter two illustrating an imbalance in the administration’s authority over taxis that needs to be rectified.”
Regarding the additional provision being challenged (third), Pérez noted that “it establishes the framework for a work calendar for PMRs, when they are actually exempt by law and any such regulations must be publicized in the BOP to be enforceable.”
