Compiled with the help of artificial intelligence, based on Spanish-language information. Source below the article.
Supreme Court clears the way for Uber and Cabify on Gran Canaria
The arrival of Uber and Cabify on Gran Canaria has moved a step closer after Spain’s Supreme Court rejected the limit that restricted the granting of new licences for private hire vehicles with driver (known in Spain as VTC) on the island. The ruling dismisses the appeal lodged by the Cabildo de Gran Canaria and the Federación Regional de Taxis de Canarias (FEDETAX), which had sought to block the entry of 200 new VTC authorisations.
Why the court rejected the one-in-30 ratio
The high court found that the Canary Islands’ status as an outermost region (RUP), its territorial peculiarities and the aims of its transport legislation do not justify a ratio of one VTC for every 30 taxi licences. According to the judgment, this limitation restricts the freedom of establishment enshrined in European Union law, and it has not been proven to be necessary and proportionate for protecting the environment or guaranteeing proper management of transport, traffic and public space.
The legal question at the heart of the case
The question put before the Supreme Court was whether the Canary Islands’ outermost-region status, its territorial peculiarities and the objectives of its transport legislation could justify the quantitative cap set out in article 79 quinquies.2 of Law 13/2007, introduced by Law 9/2014. The rule prevents new VTC authorisations from being granted once the relevant island exceeds the ratio of one VTC per 30 taxis.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court concludes that the archipelago’s outermost-region status, its territorial characteristics and the aims pursued by Canarian legislation do not demonstrate that the measure is suited to guaranteeing, in a coherent and systematic way, sound management of transport, traffic and public space, nor to protecting the environment. Nor does it consider it proven that the restriction does not go further than necessary to achieve those objectives. The court therefore concludes that the limitation on VTC authorisations is unjustified and constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment protected by article 49 TFEU.
What the Cabildo argued in defence of the cap
During the proceedings, the Cabildo de Gran Canaria argued that the ratio of one VTC per 30 taxis was directly linked to the specific conditions of the archipelago. Among these it cited remoteness, insularity, the limited surface area available, the terrain, weather conditions and economic dependence on a limited number of products — circumstances covered by article 349 TFEU.
The island institution also maintained that the measure responded to reasons of social cohesion, protection of the territory and organisation of transport, rather than purely economic motives. In particular, it linked the proportion set by Canarian legislation to environmental constraints and the islands’ carrying capacity, as well as to the need to manage transport, traffic and public space.
The Supreme Court considers, however, that these arguments do not sufficiently demonstrate the necessity and proportionality of a restriction as specific as the one set out in Canarian regulations.
Senza 2020 and the EU precedent invoked in the case
Senza 2020 S.L., which opposed the appeal, also questioned whether the Canarian ratio could be justified by the Canary Islands’ peculiarities as an outermost region, or regarded as State aid compatible with the internal market. The company invoked the judgment handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on 8 June 2023, in case C-50/21, which examined the restrictions applicable to VTC authorisations.
In that ruling, the CJEU determined that article 107.1 TFEU did not preclude certain measures authorising and numerically limiting VTCs, provided that they did not involve a commitment of State resources. On the basis of that pronouncement, Senza 2020 S.L. argued that the ratio established in the Canary Islands could not be considered State aid, since it did not involve public funds, and that it therefore could not find justification in the aid regime set out in article 107.3 TFEU either.
The company ultimately argued that the Canary Islands’ peculiarities are not in themselves enough to restrict access to VTC transport activity, and that the limit of one authorisation per 30 taxis breaches article 49 TFEU by failing to meet the requirements of justification, necessity and proportionality.
What the ruling means for the islands
With its decision, the Supreme Court rules out the possibility that the Canary Islands’ singularities, on their own, can sustain this quantitative limitation on VTC authorisations — a ruling that opens the door to the arrival of Uber and Cabify on Gran Canaria.
What’s happening in the Canaries – straight to your phone
News, weather alerts and practical updates – direct from the islands, in English. We live here and know what’s going on – before the international media catch up. Everything lands on our WhatsApp channel – no middlemen, no algorithm. Curated for families, expats and travelers.
Three fishermen rescued 230km off El Hierro coast
Canary Islands free transport for 2027 hangs in the balance
Roadworks to close main access to Cruz de Tejeda
GC-1 southbound closure at Belén María for resurfacing
Fatal lorry crash on TF-5 closes Santa Cruz access
Flight chaos at Tenerife North as fog and rain hit
Work begins on GC-1 motorway expansion in Gran Canaria
Fog forces flight diversions at Tenerife North airport
New traffic rules for e-scooters and cyclists in Canary Islands
