Administrative Court of Berlin contradicts Uber

Werbung

 

 

The parties concerned have very different views on the current preliminary status of the legal action to ban the Uber app in Berlin. The Administrative Court has denied the American company’s claims.
According to a blog post published by Uber on Monday, the Administrative Court of Berlin upheld the company’s opposition and suspended the prohibition order. A representative of the US company boasted about the good news coming from Berlin by proclaiming that Uber app was able to carry on with business as usual.
However this depiction completely contradicts what the Administrative Court of Berlin is saying on this matter. At a press conference in Berlin, the Administrative Court clearly stated: “The company Uber is refusing to accept the legal order made by the State Office for Residents’ and Regulatory Affairs – an order that the prohibits the brokerage of driving services via smartphone apps (“UberPOP” or “UberBLACK”). An emergency request to restore or court order the suspensive effect of this appeal was submitted to the Administrative Court of Berlin on Friday, the 15th of August 2014. The State Office for Residents’ and Regulatory Affairs assured that enforcement measures would be taken before the court reaches its decision. Such assurances are common and provide interim relief in order to avoid setbacks that can’t be undone during a legal proceeding. This specific assurance says nothing about the legality of the prohibition order. The responsible chamber of the Administrative Court will promptly come to a decision regarding the Passenger Transport Act after consultation with the authorities and receipt of the case file.
At the end of its statement, the Court did not mince its words with regard to Uber: “Contrary to what you might otherwise hear in press conferences given by the petitioner, as of today, the Court has neither made a ruling on the appeal nor have it suspended the prohibition order”.
It’s not the first time that on-going proceedings against the company Uber have been falsely interpreted by its PR reps. A similar decision in Hamburg to prohibit Uber was also “sold” as a win.
Another taxi trade competitor was also acting rather similarly about a week ago. The company Sixt falsely interpreted the ruling made by the Regional Court of Munich in the dispute over its driver service, “mydriver”, with the Taxi Association of Frankfurt and gave the impression that they proceedings were ruled in their favour.jh
Photo: Petra Bork  / pixelio.de