Vodafone. Just like the rest mobile phone operators, has a somewhat abusive clause in its contracts, forcing customers to pay for products they never benefit from, and this is not exactly legal. In June 2018, Vodafone was sanctioned with a warning by ANPC because it forced two former subscribers to pay compensation when they terminated their contracts, and it was forced to return the money it charged them illegally.
Vodafone. The contracts were terminated before the expiration of the minimum contractual period for which they were concluded in order to benefit from certain discounts, one being 1.8 euros for a subscription of 11 euros per month, if the contract was kept for 2 years. Vodafone claimed that it offered much lower prices than normal for subscriptions precisely to oblige customers to stay on the network for a fixed period, offering the explanations below.
In case of termination of the contract before the expiry of the minimum contractual period, at the request of the client or for reasons attributable to him, the company has the right to request the payment of fair compensation equal to the value of the damage caused, according to the clauses of the subscription contract. For example, the total monthly cost for a consumption of 100 minutes in the Vodafone Romania network (from the unlimited benefits) and 100 minutes in the national network (from the unlimited benefits) would be 8 euros without VAT, considering that the minute used in any national network it is 0,04 euros without VAT. Also, the total monthly cost for the customer's use of 210 GB of mobile internet is 1.411,76 euros without VAT, considering that the use of 100 MB is charged at 0,67 euros without VAT
Vodafone challenges a sanction for abusive clauses in the contracts, but loses in court
Vodafone. The company claims that it also explained to the client that he must pay the subscription for 2 years in order to benefit from this offer, otherwise he will have to pay compensation for it, as provided by law. The court, on the other hand, appreciated that Vodafone, although it notified the client about the compensation, cannot charge money for a service that the client does not benefit from, i.e. that counter value of the subscription until the end of the 2 years, as charged by the rest of the operators.
The defenses formulated by the petitioner, in the sense that the applicability of Article 9 of OG 21/1992 cannot be discussed in the case, consisting in the professional's obligation to put on the market only products or services that do not harm the economic interests of consumers and to behave in a manner correctly in the relations with them, are unfounded, since the provisions of GEO 111/2011 invoked by the petitioner grant the right to the operators to request a just compensation, conditioning this right on the obligation to inform the users accordingly, and refer to the use of the services or the duration the minimum required to benefit from certain promotions or advantages, respectively the sums owed by subscribers at the termination of the contract, including, if applicable, the recovery of certain costs related to the contracted terminal equipment, but even these legal provisions (OG 111/2011 – no) must applied through the lens of the provisions of article 9 of OG 21/1992 regarding consumer protection.
Vodafone. If the operator had asked for the value of the phones offered at a discount, or of other equipment, then it would not have been sanctioned, but for services it does not provide, it cannot charge any money. Basically, Vodafone, or the rest of the telecom operators, cannot charge you money as compensation for services that were not provided, even if you signed a subscription for which you benefited from a discount if you pay for it for a certain period of time.
Vodafone. The decision is one of the first court, so it can be attacked by the operator, but that does not mean that he will do it, and that he will win, if he does not have new evidence, the court now reaching the decision that he did not have.
