Short Reads

Supreme Court hands down a sequel judgment on “all-in telephone subscriptions”

Supreme Court hands down a sequel judgment on “all-in telephone subscriptions”

Supreme Court hands down a sequel judgment on “all-in telephone subscriptions”

23.03.2016 NL law

On 12 February 2016, The Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) handed down a judgment on “all-in telephone subscriptions”, responding to preliminary questions raised by the District Court The Hague. In essence, the Supreme Court ruled that courts can find ex officio that “all-in telephone subscriptions” that have been sold to consumers may be partially void, avoidable or ineffective, if no separate price for the handset has been determined by the parties.

The Supreme Court also discussed the practical consequences of such a finding. The present judgment is in fact an elaboration on a judgment of 13 June 2014 (ECLI:NL:HR:2014:1385), in which the Supreme Court also responded to preliminary questions of the District Court The Hague relating to “all-in telephone subscriptions”.

All-in telephone subscriptions: qualification and legal requirements

An “all-in telephone subscription” is a product that grants the customer not only a right to the telecommunication services of the provider, but also offers the customer a handset. In the earlier judgment of 13 June 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that an all-in telephone subscription that includes a handset “for free”, can be qualified as both instalment sale (koop op afbetaling) and a consumer credit (consumentenkrediet). The qualifications as consumer credit and  instalment sale only concern the part of the agreement pertaining to the provider furnishing a handset to the consumer and the consumer obtaining ownership of the handset. The law determines that the parties to an instalment sale must determine the price of the sold good – in this case: the handset – for the instalment sale to be enforceable. The rules on consumer credit include a requirement that the contract must specify the credit amount.

Courts to assess all-in telephone subscriptions Ex officio

In the 12 February 2016 judgment (ECLI:NL:HR:2016:236), the Supreme Court further developed its view on all-in telephone subscriptions, in its answers to further preliminary questions asked by the District Court The Hague (Rb. Den Haag 20 July 2015, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:8764).

The Supreme Court held that, if an all-in telephone subscription can be qualified as an instalment sale and/or a consumer credit, the court must – ex officio, but after hearing the present party or parties – establish whether the mandatory requirements of such agreements have been met, e.g. that the purchase price of the handset and the credit conditions have been mentioned.

If the requirements with regard to ‘consumer credit’ have not been met, the court can nullify the ‘handset part’ of the contract. The (partial) nullification of the contract has retroactive effect.

Supreme Court’s practical Guidelines

As a result of the contract being partially void, avoided, or ineffective, the consumer is obliged to return the handset to the provider. In principle, the handset can be returned in the condition at the time of return, although the consumer will be liable for a decline in value of the handset if it is due to the consumer’s lack of care after it has been made clear to the consumer that the handset must be returned.

If the consumer does not return the handset, a compensation is due, based on the value of the handset at the time of the occurrence of default. A default notice from the provider to the consumer may be  required for this purpose. Remarkably, the Supreme Court held that the consumer is in principle not obliged to pay compensation for enjoyment or usage of the handset.

The provider is obliged to refund the amounts it received for the handset to the consumer. Therefore, the court should establish what part of the monthly payments can be attributed to the purchase price for the handset, or repayment of the credit, including any related costs paid by the consumer.

All-in price unfair or unreasonably burdensome?

Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that a contractual term providing for an all-in price will usually qualify as a term that pertains to ‘the actual subject matter of the agreement’ as provided in article 4 sub 2 of the unfair terms Directive (93/13/EEG), and as a ‘core term’ as provided for in article 6:231, sub a, Dutch Civil Code. Consequently, the question whether the term is ‘unfair’ or ‘unreasonably burdensome’ need not be addressed.

The post Supreme Court hands down a sequel judgment on “all-in telephone subscriptions” is a post of www.stibbeblog.nl.

Related news

19.10.2018 EU law
EU top court on international jurisdiction in tort cases: localising pure financial loss, continued

Short Reads - On 12 September 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed that in prospectus liability cases, a court can only assume international jurisdiction on the basis that the alleged damage consists of purely financial loss which occurred directly in an investor's bank account held with a bank established within its jurisdiction if additional specific circumstances also contribute to that court assuming jurisdiction.

Read more

26.09.2018 BE law
Eerlijke marktpraktijken, slechtmaking en de vrijheid van meningsuiting

Articles - Op 1 maart 2018, oordeelde het hof van beroep te Brussel[1] dat een aan derden verzonden e-mailbericht waarin werd meegedeeld dat alle samenwerking met de betrokken partij was beëindigd op grond van het feit dat de door deze laatste geleverde diensten waren bekritiseerd wegens hun slechte kwaliteit, en dit terwijl er hieromtrent een procedure hangende is, een daad van slechtmaking is, verboden door artikel VI.104 WER. Hetzelfde geldt voor een e-mailbericht aan derden, waarin een bepaalde persoon wordt afgedaan als een “individu zonder scrupules”.

Read more

26.09.2018 BE law
Pratiques honnêtes du marché, dénigrement et la liberté d’expression

Articles - Par jugement du 1er mars 2018, la cour d’appel de Bruxelles[1] a déclaré qu’un courriel adressé à des tiers, indiquant qu’il aurait été mis fin à toute collaboration avec la partie en cause au motif que les prestations fournies par celle-ci auraient été critiquées en raison de leur piètre qualité alors qu’une procédure est pendante à cet égard, constitue un acte de dénigrement interdit au sens de l’article VI.104. du CDE. Il en est de même d’un courriel adressé à des tiers, indiquant qu’une personne identifiée est un «  individu sans scrupules ».

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring