The Athens Multi-Party Court of First Instance dismissed lawsuits filed against PPC by consumer organizations, bar associations, professional federations, associations and consumers seeking the repeal of the electricity rate adjustment provision.

In their lawsuits, they accused the CPP of “abusing its dominant position in the domestic electricity market”, of using “unfair commercial practices”. They argued that the PPC “unilaterally and without any provisions” introduced the adjustment clause.

In its decision, the court referred in detail to European Union electricity regulations and Greece’s harmonization with Community law for the gradual liberalization of the electricity market.

“The electricity market is currently reduced to a stock market product and is determined by the Hellenic Energy Exchange (…) the clause is not only not unverifiable, but also amounts to mIcommercially acceptable practice on the electricity market in order to ensure that the price of electricity supply complies with the principle of cost orientation”.

Based on the decision, “Corrective clauses, on the one hand, affect the determination of the price, on the other hand, they are not entirely expected in variable rate agreements. A consumer who decides to conclude an energy supply contract not at a fixed price, but at a variable rate, probably knows that the change is made on the basis of a clause in the contract, an adjustment clause. Therefore, the provisions in question, as well as any price adjustment provisions in the case of a variable benefit, are not subject to an abuse test, but only a transparency test.”

PPC has begun introducing an adjustment clause effective August 5, 2021 at the suggestion of the RAE.

“According to the current wording of the decision of the RAE, the application of this paragraph is left to the potential discretion of the suppliers and their ability to take other equivalent measures is recognized.… Thus, each supplier can define its own adjustment clause based on the potential risk… The RAE acted proactively and introduced measures in the form of a recommendation to suppliers…,” the decision notes, which recognizes the ability of suppliers to adjust prices following price changes electricity for them.

The Court, taking into account the prevailing special circumstances and, above all, the fact that in August 2021 “it was impossible to foresee a rapid increase in the cost of electricity at the international level”, emphasizes: “In any case, the purpose of the relevant paragraph is not to benefit and damage the customer, but to comply respondent to the billing principles provided for in the CVV, i.e. the principle of transparency stipulated by RAE Decision No. 409/2020”.

However, the decision emphasizes that, based on the Electricity Code (Governmental Gazette, April 2013), any tariff adjustment mechanism should be transparent, understandable in terms of its calculation for the consumer and offer him sufficient opportunities to manage the risks of intertemporal price fluctuations. .

In addition, the court ruled that “the supplier is obliged to provide his counterparty with the opportunity to terminate the contract, i.e. he must allow him to withdraw from the treaty to the extent that he considers the bailout unprofitable for him.

The Court refers to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and notes that the right of the consumer must indeed be exercised. “Something like this would not apply under the CEC when the consumer was unable to change supplier or when the consumer was not properly and timely informed of the impending change.”

Source: ERT