Portugal’s taxi drivers union ANTRAL is threatening to hold demonstrations in September to highlight the encroachment of the web-based Uber car hire service into its members territory.
The second complaint from the union is that the government simply is not doing anything to uphold the court injunction that ANTRAL claims ordered a ban on Uber’s operation in Portugal.
In comments that will not gain the support of government, ANTRAL singles out the Secretary of State for Transport for particular criticism, accusing Sérgio Almeida somehow of being in cahoots with Uber Portugal.
The elephant in the room is that four months ago ANTRAL’s lawyer erroneously obtained an injunction to halt the operations of Uber Inc, registered and operating in the USA, rather than Uber Portugal which legally is allowed to operate. This injunction was confirmed in June yet does not stop Uber operating in Portugal.
Parts of the court ruling was that the Bank of Portugal should freeze all Uber related financial transactions. The Bank of Portugal has not followed this instruction from the court as it is aware that the injunction covers Uber Inc and not the company registered in Portugal.
Taxi drivers and their organisations in other countries have contended that Uber and similar smartphone app-based services have an unfair advantage because they are not subject to the same kinds of fees and regulations placed on taxis.
On June 11, 2014, in a concerted action, taxis blocked roads in major European cities in protest against what they perceive as a threat to their livelihoods by companies such as Uber.
Florêncio Almeida from ANTRAL said of Uber’s continuing operation in Portugal, that “we can’t allow this situation to continue. This is why members will be onto the streets in force to show the government that it must act to uphold the judicial order from the courts. The government cannot be outside the law. It has to uphold it. That is why it was elected.”
Almeida made no comment as to the legal problems kicked off by his lawyers taking the wrong company to court.
Comments