Occasional – or how few times the break the same law

 

Easter is one of the traditional terms vows. But if someone decided to take advantage of last minute holidays to transport the wedding such a vehicle as on the picture, it is very likely, that participated in breaking the law. From 7 April 2012 r. arranging transportation m.in. such vehicles is in fact illegal. I hasten to reassure anxious readers – the legislature did not suddenly become the enemy of luxury vehicles. Prohibition of offering distinctive wedding transport vehicles is not a result of ill will, and only short-sightedness and incompetence of the legislature. Although sometimes it does not really know, What is worse.

Legitimate aim of the amendment

On 7 April 2011 r. came into force the Law on Road Transport (published in Dz.U. No. 48, Item. 247), which is (w art. 18 paragraph. 4a i 4b), that occasional carriage of persons is permissible only in case of historic vehicles and vehicles designed to transport more than 7 persons including the driver. All other transport services for passengers using the car may only be carried in taxis. Persons providing occasional services of the entry into force of the law have a year to adjust to new rules – hence the ban started in practice in force from 7 April 2012 r.

The intention of the legislator as always were good – called intention to limit the scope to provide passenger services as competition for taxis. Probably a number of readers come across this phenomenon, especially in Central Station in Warsaw, where often you come across the vehicle like a taxi, where prices are, however, often many times higher. This kind of service before that amendment dealt with were nothing, a person providing it had no – other than taxi drivers – no restrictions as to the requirement of competence, the prices, method of marking, etc.

Implementation of much worse

Unfortunately – as we have repeatedly taken place – the legislature has failed to fulfill its purpose and created a regulation, which – in the language of everyday – baby with the bath water overflowed. In fact, he was prevented from competition with taxis, but deprived of the right to operate a number of entrepreneurs, taxi with passenger who had nothing to do. A typical example are the companies offering these luxury transport vehicle with a driver on the occasion of weddings or other celebrations. It is hard to understand, rations which would argue for the prohibition of such activities, taking into account, that they operate on completely different principles than the carriage taxis. The amendment penalizes – for breaking the ban threatens a fine of 15.000 zł – journeys organized by hotels and other institutions, which often offer the opportunity to travel by car the hotel for a fee at the airport or the station.

Incomprehensible stubbornness

Mistakes happen to everyone, although it would be, blacking out if they are legislators as little as possible. Worse, however,, when someone is in spite of his mistaken belief he draw attention. It turns out, that against the negative consequences described above adhered Members in Parliamentary review of the Analysis. It fell m.in. The following statements: It seems, that the authors focus on the main purpose of the project being placed on forgotten, occasional services in that category is now spacious and includes other phenomena described above, except transport of passengers (alternative taxi – footnote. PJ). Because of this, it appears advisable to review the range of actors, which the project as it stands will have an impact. As you can imagine, in discussions on the draft of the parliamentary committee was not any reference to the content opinion.

Mr Wise after the event?

Members recognized the shortcomings of these laws and decides to remove the shortcomings of that regulation, passing on 30 mark 2012 r. amendment Road Transport Act. But the question, or in this case will not apply the words of Jan Kochanowski, that Pole and silly after the fact. New records of – though aimed in the right direction – are in fact highly controversial, and many do not solve problems. Indeed, according to the new wording of Article. 18 paragraph. 4b Act occasional you can make the other vehicles than the old or intended to carry more than 7 people. The problem is that, that this possibility is subject to a number conditions such as:

• exercise carried personally by the carrier or driver employed by him,
• the need for a written agreement at the headquarters of the carrier
• need to pay a flat fee for the carriage of non-cash or cash at the premises beforehand entrepreneur
• vehicle for the transport must be the sole property of the carrier

I understand the need to combat the pathologies, but the requirement to enter into a written agreement and is the seat of the carrier is devoid of any foundation. After a series of such agreements (np. of carriage during wedding) is in the form of an even exchange e-mails. It is also difficult to understand why, fee must be paid in advance – very clearly violates the interests of consumers, who probably would prefer to be able to pay a portion after the service, which is usually a guarantee of, for a service that will. By far the most unreasonable, however, is a record of the requirement, that the vehicle used to transport the carrier was the exclusive property of. This prevents all those activities, that benefit from the lease and often the loan to purchase a vehicle (bank often reserves the ownership of shares in the vehicle). In practice, this may force the termination of business by a number of entrepreneurs.

“Inflict harm people”

What is most astonishing in the proceedings Members? Re aware of the negative consequences of the amendment, but consciously voted for it, counting on, that can be corrected in the Senate. This is illustrated by the following conversation in the parliamentary committees (also available here):

Secretary of State Tadeusz Jarmuziewicz MTBiGM:
I verbally from the platform supported, but I have this reflection, Mr, namely, What about the lease and współwłasnościami. Wywalimy few interests to Top, and this is not our intention, especially leasing, These extraordinary expensive cars can be bought in leasing. If we talk about the exclusive property, Guests bury it, they just hurt.

Chairman Mr Zbigniew Rynasiewicz (PO):
Please.

Mr Krzysztof Tchorzewski (Law and Justice):
Minister, Here's controversy with the problem, and which we had discussed earlier. She was co-ownership, This is a major problem.

Secretary of State Tadeusz Jarmuziewicz MTBiGM:
Joint ownership of? A leasing?

Mr Krzysztof Tchorzewski (Law and Justice):
This problem was not at all from the area, because here is an entrepreneur, which has several cars, This car is not a network. I always can arrange a loan, always able to cope.

Secretary of State Tadeusz Jarmuziewicz MTBiGM:
I'm torn, really, I'm afraid, that we are doing harm to some people.

Mr Krzysztof Tchorzewski (Law and Justice):
Mr President,, if indeed this amendment will be rejected, I announce to the protocol, then that there was no such instances, as today, that the system is completely rozszczelniony. Thank you. I know and I know the situation on the market.

Secretary of State Tadeusz Jarmuziewicz MTBiGM:
Means, this is already clarified at the moment. The Lord even harder pressed, only, that on this occasion probably throw the baby out with the bathwater, do people hurt. I verbally from the platform supported, but I realized the consequences of, that form of ownership may be different, is this a form of custody rights.

Mr Krzysztof Tchorzewski (Law and Justice):
So you, Minister, you turn, from the stands as another, Here something else. Thank you.

Chairman Mr Zbigniew Rynasiewicz (PO):
Go to the settlement. Please, pan posel, please.

Mr Stanislav Huskowski (PO):
It seems to me, that and so we turn to the Senate, to fellow senators, to make amendment, unfortunately, do pkt 2 lit. c, therefore, and if so, the Senate is still debated, it can assume the proposed amendment at this time by Mr Tchórzewski, a dopiszemy leasing w Senacie.

Polish legislative process in all its glory.

In this context, a mistake in art added. 18 paragraph. 5, where instead of 8 people (this is the first natural number above the number of 7 resulting from Article. 18 paragraph. 4a) entered 9 people, seems to be a complete triviality.

Hope in the Senate…

We hope, that the Senate will actually equal to the task. I'll try to look at this issue, though sometimes it is obvious, substantive reasons that are irrelevant in the face of the machine of clerical (vide a change of the President on the transfer of provincial courts to recognize other administrative certain matters from the scope of the Chief Inspector of Road Transport, that despite my intervention to date has not been done)