Taxi and VTC lawyer in Paris: card, licence and platform disputes.

Any driver who carries out private passenger transport for payment with a vehicle of fewer than ten seats must hold a professional card issued by the administrative authority (Article L. 3120-2-2 of the Transport Code). Article L. 3120-2-1 makes this card subject to conditions of professional fitness and good repute, which the implementing decree sets out. Article R. 3120-6 thus requires a driving licence suited to the vehicle, whose probationary period has expired when the person enters the profession, a pass in a fitness test and compliance with the good repute condition. The same article requires the card to be issued within a maximum of three months of the application, and to be displayed visibly on the windscreen when the vehicle is used professionally. In practice, an application may fail on proof of fitness or on an entry in the criminal record. The firm checks the documents sent to the prefecture, the filing date and the reasons given for any refusal. A refusal that is not reasoned, or that rests on an inapplicable text or on a conviction absent from bulletin no. 2, can be challenged before the administrative court within the time limit for challenge.

Not just any conviction. Article R. 3120-8 of the Transport Code covers only entries on bulletin no. 2 of the criminal record, and sets out a closed list. It includes a final conviction for a road offence punished by the loss of half of the points on the driving licence, driving without a licence or despite its annulment, refusal to return the licence after invalidation, and a serious-crime sentence or a sentence of at least six months' imprisonment for an offence of theft, fraud, breach of trust, intentional violence against the person, sexual assault, arms trafficking, extortion or an offence under drug legislation. A conviction outside this list, or a conviction that does not appear on bulletin no. 2, does not meet this condition. The person concerned can obtain from the public prosecutor disclosure of the full extract of their record, without receiving a copy (Article 777-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The firm first examines the judgments of conviction, the nature of the offence and the length of the sentence, then checks whether the refusal or withdrawal of the card really rests on one of the cases provided for.

Yes. Where the rules applicable to the profession are breached, the administrative authority may give the driver a warning or withdraw the professional card temporarily or permanently (Article L. 3124-11 of the Transport Code). A card may also be withdrawn because the conditions for issuing it were not met: the Douai administrative court of appeal thus dismissed the application of a driver whose card had been withdrawn for lack of sufficient professional experience, because the payslips from driving work were contradicted by the driver's tax returns, which showed full-time employment as a mechanic over the same period (CAA Douai, 2nd ch., 15 March 2022, No. 21DA00818). This unfavourable decision shows that the consistency of the documents matters as much as their number. The challenge is brought before the administrative court, in principle within two months of notification (Article R. 421-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice). If the loss of the card deprives the driver of income, a suspension application (référé-suspension) can be made, provided that urgency and a serious doubt as to the lawfulness of the decision are shown (Article L. 521-1 of the same code).

No, unless there is a prior booking. Article L. 3120-2 of the Transport Code prohibits a driver who does not hold a parking authorisation from picking up a customer on the public highway without a booking, from stopping, parking or driving around looking for customers, and from parking near railway stations and airport terminals beyond the period set by decree. After each booked service, Article L. 3122-9 requires the driver to return to the operator's place of business or to a parking place off the carriageway, unless there is a new booking or a contract with the end customer. The Criminal Chamber held that this failure necessarily leads the driver to park or drive around while waiting for a trip, which constitutes the unlawful practice of the activity of taxi operator (Cass. crim., 28 November 2023, No. 22-80.577). In that case, the conviction of the company and of two individuals for complicity in that offence became final, the quashing relating only to another offence and to the sentences. A driver who is prosecuted must therefore be able to justify, trip by trip, the booking that precedes each pick-up and where he or she was between two assignments.

In the wording applicable since 27 June 2026, Article L. 3124-12 of the Transport Code punishes with three years' imprisonment and a fine of €45,000 hiring out a vehicle by the seat without a prior booking, picking up a customer on the public highway without a booking, soliciting a customer with a view to such a pick-up or offering such a service for sale, or carrying out transport without the professional card corresponding to the activity. Individuals also face suspension of the driving licence for up to five years, immobilisation of the vehicle for up to one year, its confiscation and a ban from entering certain places. The same text provides for a fixed-penalty fine for an offence (amende forfaitaire délictuelle) of €500, reduced to €400 and increased to €1,000. Légifrance gives an end date for this version of 1 January 2029, when a new wording will take over: the date of the facts therefore determines the text applied. The firm checks the report, whether the booking was real, the time-stamping in the application and the capacity of the officers. It also considers whether it is advisable to accept or contest the fixed-penalty fine, because payment extinguishes the criminal proceedings and then closes off any discussion of the reality of the facts alleged.

Article L. 3120-2, III, of the Transport Code prohibits VTC drivers and booking centres from informing a customer, before booking, of both the location and the availability of a vehicle situated on the public highway. This rule protects the activity reserved for taxis. In the dispute between a VTC company and the Transopco platform, the Commercial Chamber clarified that this text does not require that the customer be able to select a specific vehicle: it is enough that the customer knows the position and availability of the nearest cars before ordering (Cass. com., 25 June 2025, No. 23-22.430). In the same decision it recalled that “Failure to comply with a regulation in carrying on a commercial activity constitutes an act of unfair competition, since it necessarily gives its author an undue competitive advantage” (our translation) (Cass. com., 25 June 2025, No. 23-22.430). The platform's appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed. For the driver, the consequence is twofold: the platform's log-on instructions may expose the driver to prosecution, and they may also serve as evidence in a debate on the driver's status. The firm analyses screenshots of the application and the terms of the partnership contract.

It depends on the date the parking authorisation was issued. Article L. 3121-2 of the Transport Code makes authorisations issued after the law of 1 October 2014 non-transferable, valid for five years and renewable. The holder of an older licence may put forward a successor for consideration to the competent authority, in Paris the police prefecture, provided that the licence has been operated actually and continuously for fifteen years from its issue, or five years from the first transfer. Article L. 3121-3 provides for exceptions where a business operating several licences ceases activity, in insolvency proceedings, in the event of permanent incapacity or on death. Where these conditions are not met, the buyer faces a refusal of transfer. In a case where the municipalities had refused the transfer of two licences sold before the end of the required period of operation, the Bordeaux court of appeal found that they had become transferable on the day it ruled, ordered their compulsory transfer to the buyer, and ordered the sellers to compensate the buyer for financial, commercial and moral loss (CA Bordeaux, 2nd civil ch., 27 November 2025, No. 22/03085). Before any promise is signed, the firm checks the order of issue, the history of transfers, the evidence of operation and the agreement of the administrative authority.

Only for licences issued before 1 October 2014. Article L. 3121-1-2 of the Transport Code requires the holder to operate the authorisation personally, but for these older licences allows operation by employees, by a lessee-manager to whom the authorisation and the vehicle are leased together under the rules of the Commercial Code, or by a workers' production cooperative holding the authorisations that rents the taxi to its authorised members. The contract must nevertheless correspond to a genuine lease. The Paris court of appeal requalified a business leasing contract with a purchase option, noting that the contract concealed a disguised transfer of the licence: a high security deposit, fees credited against the price, the option to substitute a third party and a commitment to transfer at the end of the contract (CA Paris, pôle 4 ch. 10, 10 September 2026, No. 22/10246). It drew the financial consequences provided for in an earlier agreement between the parties. This analysis is a warning to lessor and lessee alike: an arrangement that circumvents the conditions for transfer can be called into question. The firm examines the economic balance of the contract, the date the licence was issued and the authorisation given by the administration before anything is signed.

Yes. Article L. 3124-1 of the Transport Code allows the authority that issued the parking authorisation to give a warning or to withdraw it temporarily or permanently where it is not operated actually or continuously, or in the event of a serious or repeated breach of the regulations. Article R. 3121-6 provides that this operation is proved by income tax returns, tax assessment notices or any other means defined by order of the competent authority. The Toulouse administrative court of appeal dismissed the application of a holder whose licence, entrusted to a lessee-manager, had been withdrawn: the tax returns of the operating company established an economic activity, but not actual operation within the municipality, for lack of regular presence of the vehicle (CAA Toulouse, 3rd ch., 31 December 2024, No. 23TL01072). This unfavourable decision underlines that the proof must be localised and continuous. The firm therefore assembles, for the whole period under review, trip invoices, taximeter readings, parking evidence and tax returns, before challenging the order before the administrative court.

It is possible in theory, but the proof required is demanding. A registered driver is presumed to be independent, and must show that he or she worked under a permanent legal relationship of subordination (Article L. 8221-6 of the Labour Code). The Versailles court of appeal rejected the claim of a driver affiliated to a radio dispatch operator, holding that “the existence of economic dependence, assuming it was alleged and shown, is not enough in itself to establish a relationship of subordination” (our translation) (CA Versailles, social ch. 4-2, 23 January 2025, No. 24/01856). The court held that the requirements of courtesy and comfort imposed by the quality charter were inherent in the taxi trade, so that the withdrawal of points in the event of a breach did not reveal an organised service. It confirmed that the employment tribunal lacked jurisdiction and referred the case to the commercial court. This unfavourable outcome does not rule out every action: it requires showing precise instructions on how trips are carried out, effective supervision and sanctions that go beyond the mere performance of a commercial contract. The firm compares the affiliation contract, the charter and the actual practice before choosing the court.

Not on its own, but these factors weigh heavily. In the Uber case decided on 4 March 2020, the Social Chamber approved a court of appeal that had held that freedom to choose one's working days and hours did not rule out subordination, the logged-on driver being part of a service organised by the platform (Cass. soc., 4 March 2020, No. 19-13.316). The outcome remains an assessment of the facts. The Bordeaux court of appeal rejected the requalification sought by another driver, holding that “the possibility of setting a price, even a maximum one, unilaterally does not establish a relationship of subordination” (our translation) (CA Bordeaux, social ch. A, 3 February 2026, No. 25/00573), since the driver could refuse trips, use other applications and serve his or her own customers. This judgment is unfavourable to the driver and designated the commercial court. The case is therefore built on the facts specific to the driver: instructions received, imposed routes, fare corrections, disconnections after refusals, a monitored cancellation rate. The firm lists these elements from the application history and the messages received.

Directive (EU) 2024/2831 of 23 October 2024 requires Member States to establish a legal presumption of an employment relationship where facts indicating direction and control are found. Under its Article 5, the platform that wants to rebut this presumption must then prove that the relationship is not an employment relationship. The presumption must be a procedural facilitation and must not increase the burden on the worker. Article 29 sets 2 December 2026 as the transposition deadline. For contractual relationships in progress on 2 December 2026, Article 5(6) limits the presumption to the period starting on that date, and recital 33 states that earlier periods remain governed by the law then applicable. As of 1 November 2026, Article L. 8221-6 of the Labour Code as published on Légifrance keeps the wording in force since 1 January 2023; the French transposition measures and their effective date remain to be checked on the day of the action. The driver must therefore distinguish between periods: before 2 December 2026, the burden of proving the relationship of subordination rests on the driver under current case law. The firm follows the transposition text and its conditions of entry into force before settling on a requalification strategy.

The first question concerns the driver's status, because it determines the court and the time limit. If the driver is independent, the Transport Code guarantees that no penalty follows the refusal of a trip, and the platform may neither suspend nor end the relationship for that reason alone (Article L. 1326-2 of the Transport Code). The same text requires the platform to tell the driver, when it offers a service, the distance, the destination and the guaranteed minimum price, after deduction of commission fees. Terminating an established commercial relationship without sufficient written notice can also make the platform liable (Article L. 442-1 of the Commercial Code). If the driver maintains that he or she was in reality an employee, the action relating to the termination is subject to a limitation period of twelve months from its notification (Article L. 1471-1 of the Labour Code). The next step is to identify the ground relied on: a customer's report, an expired document, a withdrawn professional card, a suspicion of fraud. A suspension based on the expiry of the card or of the insurance can be settled by regularising the document. The firm asks for the reasons in writing, reconstructs the income history and chooses between regularisation, negotiation and legal action.

Yes, on the ground of unfair competition, but the quantification of the loss remains debated. In the litigation arising from the UberPop service, the Commercial Chamber accepted that compensation may be assessed by taking into account the undue advantage the wrongdoer gave itself by escaping costly regulation, adjusted according to the respective business volumes. It added that “Where the author of the unfair practice proves that the competitor has suffered neither loss, nor lost profit, nor loss of a chance to avoid a loss or make a gain, it is liable only to compensate moral loss, which is irrebuttably presumed” (our translation) (Cass. com., 9 April 2025, No. 23-22.122). It therefore set aside the awards made for the economic loss of taxi drivers, the court of appeal having found that their turnover had not fallen during the period in question. The outcome is partly unfavourable to the taxi drivers claiming: the moral loss remains, but economic loss requires proof. The firm gathers comparative turnover figures, the period of the practices and evidence of the undue competitive advantage before quantifying the claim.