Court forces Balearic government: 600 Uber licenses must be re-examined

Court forces Balearic government: 600 Uber licenses must be re-examined

Key question: Why did a court send the government back to the drawing board — and what does this concretely mean for Mallorca?

A recent judgment requires the Balearic government to re-examine around 600 license applications for Uber vehicles that had previously been rejected. The company affected is Moove Cars, whose vehicles operate here via the app. On the island there are currently just under 360 such licenses registered; if the requested approvals were granted, the number would almost triple. The Ministry of Transport described the ruling as not good news and announced it would lodge an appeal. At the same time, the government plans to legally cap the number of Uber vehicles in the future.

The situation is not just a legal dilemma. At taxi ranks in Palma around Plaça Espanya you now hear conversations about existential worries more frequently: drivers who have been working shifts for years are facing the prospect of a flood of new competition. On the Passeig Marítim, especially in the evenings, a denser mix of hire cars, bus lines and taxis drives by, honking, braking and trying to pick up tourists. That soundscape makes tangible what numbers alone do not express: this is about jobs, public space and the role of a platform economy in an island city.

Critical analysis: the court ruling raises several open questions. First: on what legal basis were the licenses originally rejected? Second: how transparent was the selection and review process? And third: what would be the consequences of a possible doubling or tripling of VTC vehicles for traffic flow, parking space and air quality?

The Balearic government now stands between two imperatives. On the one hand, the duty to implement court decisions and to justify administrative choices properly. On the other, the desire to keep urban mobility manageable and to protect the taxi industry from massive competition. The announced appeal shows that the government does not intend to give up the legal fight without a struggle. The intent to limit future numbers by law is a political tool, but it only takes effect once such rules are in force.

What is missing from the public debate: discussion often focuses on providers versus taxis, on app versus taxi companies. Less attention is paid to users — commuters, night-shift workers, people with reduced mobility — as well as to employees of the platform companies. Also little visible is how licenses were assessed: were there waiting lists, formal checks or unofficial factors that could explain rejected applications? And finally: what are the urban-planning consequences of sudden changes in the number of vehicles on the road?

Concrete solutions that should now be discussed include: first, a time-limited transitional arrangement that suspends new allocations until the appeal is decided and a clear legal framework is in place. Second, a public register of all VTC licenses with transparent criteria for grant and rejection — transparency builds trust among drivers and passengers. Third, a round table with taxi representatives, platforms, municipalities and consumer advocates to cushion social hardship (for example compensation payments or retraining offers), instead of resolving conflicts only in the courts. Fourth, technical measures: more loading zones, clearer pick-up points for ride-hailing and targeted inspections so that inner-city areas are not overloaded.

A field observation from Palma: on a rainy Wednesday afternoon a taxi driver stands outside the Estació Intermodal, smokes a cigarette and writes numbers in her small notebook. She does not like to say that she is nervous, but the lines on her face reveal it. When every displacement in the market hits the ends of shifts, we feel it in more than just numbers: longer waits, uncertain income, more stress on narrow streets.

Conclusion: the court has forced the administration to be diligent. That is formally correct, but politically complicated. It would be wiser to use the legal confrontation to create rules that endure and do not throw local mobility out of balance. One-sided decisions favoring platform growth or pure protectionism of the taxi trade would be short-sighted. Better: transparent procedures, a clear limit on allowed vehicles and social compensation mechanisms — all negotiated openly in Palma, not only in courtrooms.

The balance is difficult, the clock is ticking, and on Mallorca's streets you can already hear many opinion-makers rev their engines: drivers who argue, passersby who open the next app — and an administration that now has to prove how it can reconcile growth, law and everyday life on an island with little room for experiments.