Many readers will have had the experience - signing up for a new mobile (phone) contract and opting for the 2-year commitment in order to obtain the best terms, and then again starting a new contract with the same provider when a new and more attractive offer comes about. What happens then with the remaining months on the new contract?
Vodafone Germany thought, we learn through xxx, that these months should just be added to the next contracts. In the case of the two consumers on behalf of whom the German Verbraucherzentrale brought a case, the new contracts they signed after upgrading to a new device and service level were drafted as including a minimum commitment of 26 months, in one case, and "24 months after the expiry of the original commitment period" in the other case.
German courts disagreed on whether this extension, which meant that even though the parties had agreed mutually to a new contract the old contract would "live on" in terms of commitment, was in line with the Universal Services Directive, according to which (article 30 para 5)
Member States shall ensure that contracts concluded between consumers and undertakings providing electronic communications services do not mandate an initial commitment period that exceeds 24 months. Member States shall also ensure that undertakings offer users the possibility to subscribe to a contract with a maximum duration of 12 months.
Was this maximum "initial commitment" period, the ECJ was hence asked, limited to the first contract between a consumer and a service provider, or did the same capping also apply to subsequent contracts, so that they should not (directly or indirectly) bind the consumer for more than 24 months?
The Court begins its analysis by acknowledging (para 30) that the different language versions may point in more or less ambiguous directions: whereas in some versions it is clear that the rule was meant to regulate *commitment periods* irrespective of contractual form, in some other languages "initial" could refer to both the period and the contract, so that only the first contract would be covered by the restriction. The task is then to solve this ambiguity in a way that secures uniform application throughout the Union.
In the following paragraphs, the Court takes a deep dive in the competitive reasons behind the rule, under the Universal Services Directive in the original formulation as well as under the more recent amendments and finally the new Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (OJ 2018 L 321, p. 36).
The gist of the reasoning is that the rule is meant to make sure that consumers should be able to "change providers when it is in their interests... without being hindered by legal, technical or practical obstacles, including contractual conditions, procedures, charges and so on."(recital 47 Dir 2009/136) While reasonable minimum contractual periods are allowed, they should not be used to make it more difficult "potentially for long periods, for consumers to change provider"and thus to deprive them "of the possibility to take full advantage competition in the field concern" (para 33).
While it can be considered that after the first contract the consumer has sufficient information about the provider, this doesn't mean that they should be prevented from changing provider "if a more attractive offer were to present itself" (para 34).
This leads the court to conclude that, considering that the level of protection afforded to consumers should not be lowered by their choice to enter a second contract with the same provider (para 35), the provision should be interpreted to mean that "initial commitment period" applies not only to the first contract between a provider and a consumer, but also to any successive contract between the same parties, "including when it was signed and put into effect before the expiry of the initial contract".
As a rather habit-driven and not so savvy consumer who tries to use their device for at least four to five years (and encourages all readers to do the same!), this blogger has never experienced similar issues. However, it would be interesting to see whether the problem was typically German or also present in other jurisdictions: one can see how it can be tempting for companies to have their cake (the new contract) and eat the last slice of the previous cake too. According to the Court's overview, at least the Italian and Portuguese language version would seem to have left abundant space for an ambiguous interpretation. Wonder whether there will now be hundreds of consumers potentially claiming two or a few months worth of subscription as undue payments? Please let us know if you have stories on this!
