A subscriber may terminate their internet access contract free-of-charge if the contract is amended to comply with a decision of the Court of Justice: this was the ruling by the Court of Justice of the EU on Thursday 12 March in case C-514/24.
“As that modification is not directly required by EU law, the exception to the right to terminate without costs does not apply”, stated a press release.
In rulings handed down in 2020 and 2021, the Court of Justice had already interpreted EU law as precluding so-called ‘zero tariff’ clauses in contracts for internet access. A zero tariff option is a commercial practice whereby an internet service provider applies a ‘zero-rating’ or more advantageous tariff to all or part of the data traffic associated with a specific application or category of applications offered by the service provider’s partners.
Following these rulings, the Hungarian Communications and Media Authority required service providers to amend subscription contracts containing such clauses. Under EU law, end-users have the right to terminate their contract at no extra cost if the supplier plans to change it, except in a few cases, notably where the change is directly imposed by EU or national law.
Magyar Telekom challenged that decision and the Hungarian court which referred the case asked, in essence, whether Directive 2018/1972 should be interpreted as meaning that an end-user has the right to terminate, at no additional cost, the contract they have concluded with a service provider where the latter intends to amend it in order to bring it into line with the interpretation adopted by the Court of Justice of the EU in a preliminary ruling or with the guidelines of BEREC (Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications) that were adopted after that ruling, or with a decision taken by an NRA (national regulatory authority) who are taking account of that ruling.
The Court ruled on Thursday that the exception to the right to terminate without costs must be interpreted strictly, in accordance with the general objective of ensuring a high common level of protection for end-users. It applies solely where the changes to the contractual conditions are directly and strictly imposed by the entry into force or modification of a legislative or regulatory act of EU or national law.
The Court emphasises that a preliminary ruling is purely declaratory and does not create or alter the law, and it takes effect from the date on which the rule interpreted entered into force. It cannot therefore be considered as amending a legislative or regulatory act of EU law.
Furthermore, BEREC simply ensures the consistent implementation of the regulatory framework for electronic communications. However, its acts are not legally binding and do not form part of the EU’s regulatory development process.
The decision of an NRA is also not of a legislative nature because, in adopting it, the authority is merely interpreting and applying EU electronic communications rules to a particular case.
Link to the judgment: https://aeur.eu/f/l52 (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)