The court firstly explained that the agreement, concluded between the administrator of the apartment building and the electricity supplier, is considered to be a consumer contract, since the end-users of the electricity are the apartment owners – consumers.
In relation to the defendant’s right to unilaterally terminate the electricity supply agreement, as well as to unilaterally suspend the supply of electricity, the court emphasized that such provisions create a disbalance between the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s rights and obligations. Such provisions of the agreement are considered to be unfair, because (1) unilateral suspension of the supply of electricity is forbidden under national mandatory laws and (2) the defendant’s right to unilaterally terminate the agreement both is forbidden under national mandatory laws and falls into the grey-list of unfair terms in consumer contracts set out in Article F of Annex of the Directive 93/13/EEC (implemented into Lithuanian law by Article 6.228(4) para (2) (6) of the Civil Code).
In relation to the 0.05 % interest rate, the court explained that national laws set out the highest interest rate that the consumers should pay – 0.04 %. Thus, a provision, which establishes a higher interest rate, creates an inequality between the rights and obligations of the parties, worsens the position of the consumer and therefore is unfair.