A recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-514/24 clarifies an important issue for users of telecommunications services: when consumers have the right to terminate their telecom contract without any financial penalty after unilateral changes to its terms. Υπόθεση C‑514_24
The ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 105(4) of Directive (EU) 2018/1972, which forms part of the European Electronic Communications Code.
The decision is particularly important for both consumers and telecommunications providers, as it defines the limits of unilateral modifications to telecom contracts.
The case originated in Hungary in a dispute between:
The issue concerned internet packages that included “zero-rating” pricing options. Under this model, the use of certain applications (for example, streaming services or social media platforms) did not count toward the user’s data allowance.
However, previous EU case law on net neutrality found that such practices could violate the principle of equal treatment of internet traffic.
As a result, the national regulator ordered the company to:
This raised a key legal question:
If a telecom provider changes contract terms in order to comply with EU law interpretations, do consumers still have the right to terminate the contract without paying penalties?
Directive (EU) 2018/1972 establishes a general rule:
👉 When a telecom provider unilaterally changes contractual terms, the consumer must have the right to terminate the contract without any additional financial charge.
However, there are three exceptions:
1️⃣ when the change is entirely beneficial to the user
2️⃣ when the change is purely administrative and has no negative impact
3️⃣ when the change is directly imposed by EU or national legislation. Υπόθεση C‑514_24
The dispute focused on how the third exception should be interpreted.
The Court of Justice provided several important clarifications.
The Court explained that a preliminary ruling does not create new law.
Instead, it interprets existing EU legislation, clarifying its meaning and how it should have been understood since its entry into force.
Therefore, such judgments cannot be considered legislative changes.
The Court also addressed the legal status of guidelines issued by BEREC (Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications).
Although these guidelines aim to promote consistent regulatory practice across the EU, they do not have binding legislative force.
Consequently, they cannot be considered amendments to EU law.
Finally, the Court examined whether a decision issued by a national telecom regulator could qualify as a legislative change.
The Court concluded that such decisions:
The Court ultimately ruled that:
👉 Consumers retain the right to terminate their telecommunications contract without any financial penalty when providers modify contractual terms in order to comply with:
The exception applies only when the modification is directly imposed by an actual legislative change, such as a new law or amendment to existing legislation.
The ruling has important consequences for several stakeholders.
The decision strengthens consumer protection by ensuring that users are not forced to remain bound by contracts whose terms have changed to their disadvantage.
Companies must carefully assess the impact of regulatory developments, since changes to contractual terms may trigger consumer termination rights.
The judgment clearly distinguishes between interpretation of the law and legislative change, a distinction that is crucial for determining consumer rights.
Case C-514/24 reinforces the protection of end users in the EU telecommunications sector.
The Court confirmed that only a genuine legislative change can remove the consumer’s right to terminate a contract without penalty.
All other situations — including court interpretations or regulatory guidance — do not eliminate that right.
Author : Christine J Kapela