Decision of the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia
The Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia has invalidated what has been known as the ‘Amazon rate’, which was established by Barcelona City Council in February 2023. This rate applied to companies in charge of home delivery of purchased products. by Internet. According to the court, the challenged regulations violate the principle of free movement of goods, since it is not limited to the use of areas intended for loading and unloading; On the contrary, it becomes a tax on the income generated by courier companies, something that is outside the powers of the council.
Resources and allegations
The council, headed by Ada Colau at that time, approved this ordinance on February 24, 2024. In response, the Logistics and Transportation Business Organization, known as UNO, presented a contentious-administrative appeal requesting the annulment of the provision, which It has now been supported by the TSJC. According to UNO, the rate is counterproductive and would violate not only the principle of free circulation of goods, but also the legal framework established in the Constitution and other laws related to the postal service and local finances.
The arguments of the City Council
For its part, the City Council defended itself by stating that the regulations pursued a public interest, given the intensive use that delivery companies make of urban roads, both with regard to the circulation and parking of their vehicles. The recent ruling, which can be appealed, has a dissenting vote that presents a different perspective.
Details of the rate and its impact
The TSJC highlights that the rate imposes a charge of 1.25% on the total income of each entity, while the loading and unloading areas remain free of charge for other distribution activities. Furthermore, the court observes that electronic commerce, in terms of home distribution, occupies a lower percentage of public space than other types of distribution that are not subject to this tax. This leads to the conclusion that delivery drivers do not occupy a public space exclusively, unlike other activities such as the installation of terraces or ATMs on public roads.
The court’s conclusion
The court thus concludes that what is really being imposed is a tax on economic activity, potentially affecting the expected income of distributors. This analysis is reflected in the ruling, which argues that the classification of the rate should be reviewed, considering it more as a tax than as a legitimate rate for the use of public space.
Private vote
Judge Isabel Hernández Pascual has presented an extensive dissenting opinion, in which she defends that the rate is applied appropriately and that its calculation is based on the income received by the courier companies, without this implying any type of discrimination towards local commerce. or towards other methods of distribution of goods.