Taxi Driver Online

Taxi deregulation hardship fund pays out €17m to drivers

Taxi drivers have received over €17m in compensation from the Government as a result of the deregulation of the industry. As the compensation scheme nears its end, over half of all those who held licences at the time the cap on taxi numbers was lifted have now received a payment from the hardship fund.

Taxi driver families' lobby group, Families Advocate Immediate Redress (FAIR), said entrants to the industry before it was liberalised had paid in excess of €100,000 for a taxi licence.

The average payout has been just over €11,500 - although taxi drivers claimed entrants to the market pre-deregulation had paid up to €100,000 for a licence.

Nearly 1,500 licence holders have qualified for the payments following the deregulation of the industry in November 2000. However, the Government says payments under the scheme do not represent compensation but rather "compassionate payments in respect of extreme personal financial hardship".

Applications were made by individual taxi drivers who held licenses on November 21 2000 who could show they had suffered extreme personal financial hardship and loss of income from the liberalisation of the taxi licensing system. Before deregulation there were 2,722 taxi plates in the country.

Since the hardship fund scheme started, 1,927 applications have been received and a total of €17,268,000 has been paid out to 1,498 claimants. Approval in principle for a payment has been made in four cases, pending the submission of further information but 340 applications were rejected. Another 94 applications were closed when the applicant did not submit the documentation required.

Under the payment scheme, there were 209 appeals but only 18 were successful, resulting in additional payment, and another six appeal decisions are awaited.

_________________
IDFIMH

With careful planning a few years ago the Irish government could have saved themselves 17 million Euro and a headache in Dublin. As it stands now they are having to pick up the pieces of an illegal policy and regulate in haste, rather than by a timely process.

Although Nelson no longer overlooks O'connell street I can't help thinking that the Dublin Cab trade will no doubt always remember that fateful day in the year 2000 when they met their Trafalgar in the form of Judge Roderick Murphy and the Irish judiciary.

Regards

JD

So, lets praise the Lord that this all happened in another country, and is therefore irrelevent to the U.K.

I think the issue that may be very relevant to those of us in the UK was the judgement made in favour of the Irish Gov's actions.

_________________
IDFIMH

Although the thread is about the Irish situation and that is no doubt what previous posters have restricted their comments to, Jimbo has introduced a new element into the equation. Although the Irish Government made an almighty cock-up by not planning the future of the Irish Taxi trade in accordance with the law. We must ask ourselves Is the irish situation so unique that it cannot be repeated over here. After all, the Judge did state in the Dublin case that there was a case to answer not only under Irish law but also under European law. If Jimbo thinks that European law does not apply to the UK then he is in for a rude awakening.

Regards

JD

I think you're wrong there Jimbo. Euro law is directly applicable in the UK courts. The UK judges can decide a case on Euro law and interpret that law.

However, where Euro law differs from UK law is that the former can be appealed to the European Court of Justice, and its decision will then be binding on the UK courts.

Say the UK courts had to decide whether restricted numbers were lawful under Euro law. If the courts said yes, they were unlawful, then this could be appealed to the ECJ, as could be the case if the UK courts said they were lawful.

But you are correct in that the financial and other hurdles to getting to this stage are formidable.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

You forgot to tell me how many L.A's have been defeated in Europe over WAV's. just remind me....

I think British Courts have juristicction in the U.K. but not in europe.
And that the ECJ has us all by the shorts...

I can't really see what that has to do with it - I'm talking about the procedures, not the substantive law.

People could try to use Euro law to defeat LAs, but that doesn't mean that they'll be successful.

As regards the actual issue of WAVs, I can't really offhand think of any provision in Euro law that could be used. In any case, there's usually exemptions from Euro law to achieve social objectives, and providing transport for the disabled could well fall into that category.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I agree Jimbo, but that doesn't mean that the UK courts cannot apply Euro law in the UK, but ultimately it's the ECJ that has the final say on Euro law, and what they say is binding in the UK courts.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

The ECJ do not rule on specific cases, they only rule on the interpretation of EU law. Individuals cannot take a case directly to the ECJ, the ECJ consists of a lower court called the Court of first instance, it is from this court that you can only go to the ECJ by appealing the ruling of that court.

You are most definitely wrong in saying the British or Irish courts cannot interpret EU law. The whole point of EU treaties is that individual countries can legally interpret them. The law will first be applied locally based on European legislation, If either party disagrees with the interpretation of the law then they would have the right to apply to the "court of First Instance" provided the subject matter was one in which the Court of first instance catered for.

In the Dublin case EU law was not referred to because it was never presented as an argument, however Justice Murphy went out of his way to inform those present that the case before him more than likely, not only breached Irish Legislation it also breached EU law.

Not only did Murphy cite the articles of law, which were possibly being broken, but he also backed that up with ECJ case law on the subject.

Murphy based his reasoning on existing case law something which you say needs to be applied but there is already ample case law out there based on ECJ decisions, so as far as Murphy is concerned he would have ruled on that basis.

Just in case you have forgotten what Murphy said I've taken this opportunity to post it again.

...................................................................................................

169. However, beyond these considerations, I feel bound to add a further point, which is of no little importance. I was not addressed by Counsel in the course of these proceedings on the issue of the extent to which European Community law affects the scheme put in place by the Minister. Nevertheless, I consider that European Community law is relevant to these proceedings and may also be fatal to the scheme whereby additional taxi licences will only issue to current holders of licences.

170. The argument is just this. Non-discrimination is a general principle of Community law and, as such, it is a principle which is binding upon this State as a Member State of the European Union. It is no less binding upon this Court than it is upon the Executive and the Legislature. It need hardly be observed here that this principle has informed the development of Community Law as a whole and has found expression in fields of that law as diverse as nationality and sex equality. Most recently, the Amsterdam Treaty has inserted a new Article 13 EC which provides a legislative basis for Community measures aimed at combating discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

171. Discrimination on grounds of nationality is expressly proscribed by Article 12 of the EC Treaty (formerly, Article 6 EC). It is trite law that this prohibition extends also to indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality. Such a case of indirect discrimination would arise where, as in the case before me, a national rule which appears on its face not to discriminate on grounds of nationality in practice affects nationals of other European Union Member States to a greater degree than nationals of Ireland. In this regard, it is not necessary for it to be established that the national measure in practice affects a higher proportion of foreigners, but merely that the measure is “intrinsically liable” to affect nationals of other Member States more than Irish nationals: see, in the context of Article 39 EC (formerly, Article 48 EC) Case C-237/94, O’Flynn v. Adjudication Officer [1996] ECR I-2617 .

172. Article 12 EC is directly effective and can be relied upon before this Court without the necessity of relying on any other Treaty article: Case C-92/92, Phil Collins v. Imtrat Handelsgesellschaft mbH [1993] ECR I-5145, [1993] 3 CMLR 773 .

173. I have come to the conclusion that the scheme purportedly put in place by SI 3/2000 may very well indirectly discriminate against Member States of the European Union other than Ireland in a manner which is prohibited by Article 12 of the EC Treaty. I venture that all and, if not, the great majority of current taxi licence holders are Irish nationals. By restricting the grant of new licences to this category of persons, the Minister is effectively precluding nationals of other EU Member States from becoming the owners of new taxi licences in Ireland. That those nationals could purchase the licences at the market rate is no defence. It is true that Irish persons who are not taxi licence holders are equally negatively affected, but the favouring of one group. all or most of the members of which are Irish nationals, remains.

174. I am guided, in reaching this conclusion, by such seminal European Court of Justice cases as Case C-279/93, Finanzamt Koln-Altstadt v. Roland Schumacker [1995] ECR I-225 and, in applying such principles in the Irish context, by such cases as Bloomer v. Law Society [1995] 3 IR 14 .

175. Even if my interpretation of Article 12 EC is misguided because of the equal exclusion of Irish nationals who are not taxi licence holders, Article 86 EC (formerly Article 90 EC) has to be considered, which provides, in relevant part that:
“1. In the case of ... undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights, Member States shall neither enact nor maintain in force any measure contrary to the rules contained in this Treaty, in particular to those rules provided for in Article 12 and Articles 81 to 89 .”
[Emphasis added]

176. Wyatt and Dashwood, European Community Law (Sweet and Maxwell, 3rd edn., 1993), 551, explain that the rationale behind the portion of Article 86 EC quoted above is “the fact that the State has deliberately intervened to relieve the undertaking concerned wholly or partially from the discipline of competition, and must bear the responsibility for the consequences.”

177. It is my view that the taxis must fall within the regulatory framework of Article 86 EC, as “undertakings to which [the State] grant[s] special or exclusive rights” .

178. The scheme might further be impugned under Article 86 on the ground that it might lead taxi drivers to abuse Article 82 EC, which is the Treaty provision dealing with abuses of dominant positions. This might seem a little extreme, but the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice has established that the grant of exclusivity, such as in the present case, may infringe Articles 86 and 82 either when the exercise of the exclusive rights cannot avoid being abusive ( Case C-41/90, Hofner and Elser v. Macrotron GmbH [1991] ECR I-1979, [1993] 4 CMLR 306 ), or where such rights are liable to create a situation in which the undertaking is induced to commit an abuse ( Case C-260/89, Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorassi AE (ERT) v. Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis (DEP) and Sotirios Kouvelas [1991] ECR I-2925, [1994] 4 CMLR 540 ). Also instructive in this regard is Case C-179/90, Merci Convenzionali Porto di Genova SpA v. Siderurgica Gabrielli SpA [1991] ECR I-5889, [1994] 4 CMLR 422 , as to which, see Craig and de Búrca, EU Law , 2nd ed., Oxford, 1998. Taxis may very well be induced to commit abuses of their dominant position in Ireland by the scheme purportedly put in place by SI 3/2000.

Regards

JD