Uber has a long history of tensions with local taxi operators throughout Europe, and Brussels is no exception.
On 23 September 2015, the President of the Dutch-speaking Brussels Commercial Court (now the Enterprise Court) ordered Uber to cease and desist from its taxi activities in Brussels. The President found that Uber provided taxi services within the meaning of the Ordinance of the Brussels-Capital Region of 27 April 1995 on taxi services and vehicle rental services with a driver (the Brussels Ordinance). In accordance with Article 3 of the Ordinance, it is prohibited to operate taxi services without a taxi licence granted by the Brussels-Capital Region. By connecting customers with non-professional and unlicensed drivers, Uber was engaging in an unfair market practice within the meaning of Article VI.104 of the Code of Economic Law.
Following the judgment of 23 September 2015, Uber ceased its UberPop services but continued to provide its UberX services. Contrary to the UberPop services, the UberX services are provided by professional drivers who hold a “limousine” licence. According to Uber, UberX services do not qualify as “taxi services” but as “vehicle rental services with a driver” within the meaning of the Brussels Ordinance, and are therefore not affected by the cessation order of 23 September 2015. The conditions for a “limousine” licence, required in order to provide a “vehicle rental service with a driver”, are less strict than licences for taxi services. Also, limousine licences are not subject to a cap on numbers, whereas taxi licences are.
Uber’s interpretation was not shared by the Belgian Federation of Taxis (FeBet) which, together with more than 20 taxi companies, initiated cease-and-desist proceedings last year against the UberX activities before the President of the French-speaking Brussels Enterprise Court. FeBet and the taxi companies claimed that UberX and its drivers were infringing several provisions of the Brussels Ordinance, which would qualify as an unfair market practice.
In the judgment of 16 January 2019, the President of the French-speaking Brussels Enterprise Court - referring to the case law on Uber by the Court of Justice of the European Union (Cases C-434/15 and C-320/16) - held that UberX must be considered as part of a global service, the main element of which is a transport service. UberX therefore does not qualify as a mere “information society service”, but must be regarded as being inherently linked to a transport service and, accordingly, must be classified as a “service in the field of transport”. However, according to the President of the Court, UberX does not provide a “transport service” as such since it does not own any vehicle or any licence itself. UberX itself therefore falls outside the scope of the Brussels Ordinance.
With respect to the UberX drivers, the President found that their vehicles are not made available to the public at large, but only to the registered users of the UberX App. The President therefore concluded that their activities do not qualify as “taxi services” but rather as “vehicle rental services with a driver”.
As a result, provided that the UberX drivers satisfy the conditions required by the Brussels Ordinance on “vehicle rental services with a driver”, Uber is allowed to continue carrying out its UberX activities in Brussels.
FeBet and the taxi companies announced that they intend to appeal the judgment. In the meantime, Uber has also developed UberBlack, a more expensive limo service, and UberVan, a shuttle service for up to six passengers at a time.
Please contact Karel Janssens for further information on this case and/or general legal advice relating to the digital and platform economy.