In a dispute over electricity and gas supply contracts, the Munich District Court took an important decision of interest to millions of customers. Basically, the question is: Can a supplier charge higher prices even though it has agreed to keep prices constant?
Specific reasons for the legal dispute: A woman from North Rhine-Westphalia concluded a contract for the delivery of electricity and gas with an energy supplier in the Munich district in September 2021. The contract provided for deliveries from January 1, 2022. A 12-month price guarantee was agreed.
Energy suppliers raise prices despite promises to the contrary
In January 2022, energy suppliers unilaterally increased electricity prices on February 28, 2022, and then gas prices on May 1, 2022. Customers objected to the price increases. The energy supplier then terminates the contractual relationship.
The plaintiffs were then forced to conclude new electricity and gas supply contracts at higher prices with other energy suppliers. He demanded the additional costs incurred, which totaled just under 597 euros, be reimbursed from his original energy supplier as compensation. Because the company refused to pay, the customer filed a lawsuit with the Munich District Court.
The Munich district court largely agreed with the plaintiff and ordered the provider to pay almost 516 euros.
Court: Customer may request additional costs as compensation
In its decision, the court stated, among other things:
“The court assumed that in the contract between the parties, price fixing for 12 months (…) from the end of the contract (…) was guaranteed and agreed. has. This is due to the clear wording in the order confirmation (…). Therefore, the price increase was contractually agreed before 22/23. “September 2022 is not permitted, so the plaintiff may submit an objection to the price increase in January/March 2022.”
“In the absence of further energy supplies in accordance with Therefore, the plaintiff can sue for the contractually agreed price for breach of contract the defendant additional costs, which were then borne by the plaintiff until 23/22. September 2022 must wear, demands for compensation.”
However, to the extent that the plaintiff demanded further compensation on December 31, 2022, the district court dismissed the lawsuit for the reasons stated above. The decision of the Munich District Court of 12 April 2024 (file number: 172 C 17424/23) now has permanent legal force.
