Telenor would adjust the fee without amending the contract

Telenor Hungary would reserve the right to apply the current changes in the consumer price index to all its customers in the future in the form of a one-time annual fee adjustment, so that it does not count as a unilateral amendment to the subscription contract, according to the company’s recently published February General from 21 onwards terms and conditions.


Although a negative change in the consumer price index may even take the form of a reduction in fees, it is clear that the company, which is majority-owned by the Czech PPF group, is trying to counteract any adverse effects on inflation this year.

According to the justification on Telenor’s website, the costs of investment, development and operation, which are included in the different tariffs of each service provider, are affected by the change in the consumer price index in the same way as other consumer goods.

In order to preserve the value of service fees through the change of the consumer price index, the Service Provider is entitled to adjust the fees of the tariff packages and additional services (including monthly fees and traffic fees) specified in the Subscription Agreement to the annual average consumer price index published by the Central Statistical Office.

However, in the strictly regulated circumstances, only one telecommunications service provider has the possibility to adjust the charges – the companies are subject to two legal regulations, Act C of 2003 on Electronic Communications (ENG) and Act 22/2020, effective 13 July 2021. (XII. 21.) of the NMHH on the detailed rules of electronic communications subscriber contracts in this field.

See also  Alliances reassures on inflation, takes stock of growth and the dividend

As a general rule, service providers may act fundamentally differently if they wish to amend a contract for an indefinite period or for a definite period of time (ie in a common language). In the latter case, companies have much less room for maneuver, as they can only retrofit new terms in their contracts that benefit the subscriber. According to Section 132 (7), the modification of fees and fee packages cannot be considered a beneficial modification in any way, even if they “involve beneficial changes”.

In the case of a fixed-term contract, if the change still contains unfavorable conditions for the subscriber, the customer is generally entitled to terminate the contract with immediate effect without legal consequences within 45 days of receiving the information. That is, in the case of fixed-term contracts, essentially any fee adjustment is a taboo for the service provider.


At the same time, Telenor stipulates in its new contract terms, which will take effect on February 21, that the fee adjustment based on the consumer price index cannot be considered a unilateral contract amendment, so the term. there would be no ground for termination without legal consequences for the subscriber.

But it’s time. in addition to the unilateral contract amendment, it only allows the subscriber contract to be amended through bilateral, mutual agreement, which means that Telenor could only adjust its fees if the subscriber has accepted it through active conduct.

However, the exercise of a basic subscriber right or the fulfillment of an obligation related to the performance of a subscriber contract, in particular the further use of the service or the payment of the price of the service, cannot be considered an active and expressly accepting conduct of the subscriber. . That is, if the subscriber does not make a statement during a bilateral contract amendment offer, the amendment will not be accepted by default and will not take effect.

See also  'Rabobank was ready with credit for Van Lienden mouth caps'

Based on the above, our request regarding A1 Telekom Austria ‘s previous practice is Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union referred to Telenor Hungary:

In our view, the measures described above are in accordance with the rules in force for electronic communications and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) C ‑ 326/14. s. in its judgment in Case. In it, the CJEU stated that the Directive of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, as amended by Directive 2009/136 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 Article 20 (2) of Directive / 22 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Universal Service Directive) shall be construed as meaning that a tariff adjustment clause whereby tariffs are adjusted in accordance with changes in an objective consumer price index established by a public body does not constitute a “change in the terms of the contract” within the meaning of that provision;

the service provider highlighted.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.