Since 2024, a dangerous phrase has been doing the rounds in the sector because it is only partly true: ‘The Supreme Court has overturned the ratio; licences can now be applied for’. It is worth setting the record straight on what has happened, what has actually changed and what the current situation is — because real money is at stake due to this misunderstanding.
What the courts said, in order
First, the CJEU (Case C-50/21, June 2023, concerning the Barcelona area): limiting ride-hailing authorisations with a ratio such as 1/30 restricts the freedom of establishment and is only tenable with sound justification — and protecting the economic viability of the taxi industry is not sufficient in itself. Next, the Supreme Court, which in 2024 adopted the European legal principle and annulled the automatic application of the ratio: rejecting an application on the basis of the ratio alone, without a case-by-case justification, is no longer a valid legal ground.
What neither of them did say was that the door should remain open, nor that pending applications should be granted en masse. The result is more nuanced — and more awkward: the authorities can no longer hide behind the automatic system, but they retain the ability to refuse if they provide grounds. It all comes down to the quality of each justification, case by case, region by region. The full legal analysis can be found at Is the 1/30 ratio legal?.
The actual map, as of July 2026
With this legal precedent on the table, where can applications be submitted today? The answer provided by the VTC360 regulatory map, which tracks the status of the application window with source and date for each province, is stark: as of July 2026, none of the 52 provinces has the application window open in practice. New applications continue to be rejected — now with more elaborate justifications — and the effective route into the market remains the secondary market.
Does this contradict the courts? No: the courts changed the playing field of the litigation, not the outcome of the application window. And that nuance defines the only two real routes available today.
Route 1: apply, receive a refusal and challenge it
This is a legitimate strategy with which the sector is well acquainted — a large proportion of the current ride-hailing fleet came into being as a result of court rulings, not through the licensing process. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the position of an applicant who appeals is better than before: the authorities must justify the restriction, and not all justifications will stand up to scrutiny. But the price of this route is paid in its own currency: years of legal proceedings, legal costs involving specialist counsel, and an uncertain outcome that will depend on each region and how legal doctrine evolves. It is an option for the patient litigant, not a shortcut.
Option 2: purchasing an existing licence
The route chosen by the vast majority: an already granted, transferable licence, operational within weeks. Its cost is known and public — ranging from €23,016 in A Coruña to €198,014 in the Balearic Islands according to the July 2026 index — and so is its timeline: the escrow service aims to complete the process within 7–15 days from the deposit, compared to the years it takes through the courts.
How to decide (with figures, not slogans)
An honest comparison between fighting for a new licence and buying a ready-made one depends on three variables specific to you: the province (it’s not the same to litigate where the administrative justification is weak as where it’s watertight), the timeframe (can you afford to wait years without operating?) and your tolerance for legal risk. That’s what the feasibility test is for: it cross-references the regulatory status of your area with the costs and timelines of each route and gives you a snapshot of your case. And the status of each province — one-stop shops, relevant litigation, official authorisations — is constantly updated on new licences and the map.
What to watch out for in the coming months
Three factors will shape this landscape more than any others. Firstly, how the regional governments justify rejections following Supreme Court rulings: every decision, whether well-founded or not, provides ammunition for the next round of appeals. Secondly, regional rulings: a regional court judgement overturning a specific justification can change the status of one province without affecting the rest of the map. Third, the regulatory response: nothing prevents a region from reworking its framework with a justification that does meet European standards — and consolidating the closure through the proper channels. We are tracking these three indicators province by province, with sources and dates, on the regulatory map.
One more thing, because we don’t sell hot air, not even to our own advantage: if the post-Supreme Court doctrine ends up opening up the market in some regions, the scarcity premium that currently underpins prices will ease there. This is the scenario that any serious buyer must factor into their analysis — we state this plainly when discussing investment too. In the meantime, the map is as it stands, and is published with the date.