Wow, I'm actually pleasantly surprised. I was not expecting a favorable ruling, much less basically saying that the operation is legitimate, though the judge's comments did seem to leave some room for the possibility of negotiation to settle differences that might exist.
El juez de instrucción Luis Zelaya se adhirió al dictamen del fiscal Jorge Ballestrero y desestimó por "inexistencia de delito" la denuncia que la gremial de los taxistas formuló contra 33 conductores de Uber por los presuntos delitos de "entorpecimiento del transporte, desobediencia, competencia desleal, instigación a cometer delitos y asociación ilícita".
Judge Luis Zelaya agreed with prosecutor Jorge Ballestrero's opinion and dismissed the complaint that the union of taxi drivers filed against 33 Uber drivers for the alleged crimes of "disrupting transport, disobedience, unfair competition , incitement to commit crimes and conspiracy" for "lack of offense".
I loved this part:
El fallo subraya que "todo parece girar en derredor de la disconformidad de los denunciantes con la aparición de un competidor comercial. Sin embargo, todo indica también que este fuero penal no es la vía apropiada para resolver el conflicto".
The ruling emphasizes that "everything seems to revolve around the disagreement of the complainants with the appearance of a commercial competitor. However, all of this also indicates that criminal law is not the appropriate way to resolve the conflict."
It could be that the judge is leaving the case open for other approaches to deal with Uber. His comments also included:
"No parece lógico que la intención de los acusados esté o haya estado orientada a entorpecer el transporte al que pretenden sumar sus servicios", sostiene [Zelaya]
"It does not seem logical that the intention of the accused is or has been aimed at hindering transportation services just because they intended to add their services [to the market]," he [Zelaya] says.
So, it may be that other laws or regulations may be applied in future cases, but at least it has been determined that Uber and their drivers are not intent on disrupting transport, committing disobedience, offering unfair competition or inciting and conspiring to commit crimes! Maybe the complaint by the taxi union's selected legal beagles wasn't the best approach to take? But they are probably so arrogant that they assumed that of course any judge would see it their way, as an afront to the Argentine Way.
Of course, given the wording of the complaint, and the fact that 1) vigilantism isn't accepted here any more than any other place as far as I know and 2) the taxi drivers' union and the taxi drivers themselves did indeed seem to conspire to disrupt transport and conspire to incite crimes against Uber drivers and their clients (I'm assuming through a patriotic desire to stop anti-fascist forces) - who is going to press charges against those thugs?