The court prohibits the defendant, under the penalty of a fine, when offering digital-TV subscriptions to consumers, to apply the following contractual term or substantially similar term:
"The agreement is valid during the subscription period specified in the agreement. For contracts signed after August 31, 2002, if a termination notice is not given at least 30 days before the end of the current subscription period, the contract will be automatically extended by one year with the same notice period."
The court firstly states that the contractual term at hand is included in a standard agreement which has not been subject to individual negotiation.
The court states that the contractual term in question is not such a term as specified in section 1 h of the list of unfair contractual terms as referred to in Directive 93/13/EEC. The contractual term in question is a subscription which will be prolonged if not terminated, the court states that these types of terms often are objectively beneficial for the consumer.
However, having regard to that the defendant is not obligated to remind the consumer of the notice period of 30 days and that the effect of missing the notice period is to be bound for another year, to a cost which is not insignificant, the court finds the contractual term to be unfair. The contractual term causes a significant imbalance between the parties' rights and obligations in a sense that a reasonable balance between the parties no longer exist. The court therefore finds that the term is unfair against consumers.
URL: http://www.marknadsdomstolen.se/Filer/Avgöranden/Dom05-34.pdf
Hela texten: Hela texten