Português

Abstract

After the constitutional prohibition of states and municipalities to legislate on transport, many problems arose, after all, it is the municipalities that most face the reality of transport. Many municipalities have an organized transport system, with a transit agency willing to monitor and apply transport sanctions. Although transport has local predominance, states and municipalities do not have the legitimacy to legislate on transport, with the Union having this mission. Because there is no such constitutional opening, states and municipalities find themselves “stuck” because they are unable to organize and apply sanctions through their own law, on a supplementary basis. As an example of this we can mention the Municipality of Macaíba/RN. With technology, app transportation platforms emerged. However, there is no legal provision for such transports to operate in their entirety, and they have acted clandestiny. The Union does not fully legislate transport matters, being silent on the regulation of “Moto Uber”. As a result, when the “Moto Uber” is stopped at checkpoints and their irregularity is verified, they are taken to the police stations, where a TCO – Circumstantial Occurrence Term – is drawn up, making the profession marginalized. Therefore, this study aims to analyze this problem from a political-social point of view. To this end, the rules on the subject will be analyzed and how the courts have been consolidating jurisprudence in this regard. Therefore, it is concluded that prohibiting states and municipalities from legislating on transport has not been beneficial, and does not contribute to better organizing the local transport system. 

 Keywords: Constitutional Prohibition. Transport. Transit. Transport by App.