The Euro\u00adpean Court of Jus\u00adti\u00adce (ECJ) has ruled that a long-stan\u00adding prac\u00adti\u00adce in Ger\u00adman case law is incom\u00adpa\u00adti\u00adble with EU law. This affects mil\u00adli\u00adons of con\u00adsu\u00admers who recei\u00adve dis\u00adtrict hea\u00adting and may have been pay\u00ading exces\u00adsi\u00adve pri\u00adces for years. The jud\u00adge\u00adment of 24 Sep\u00adtem\u00adber 2026 has far-rea\u00adching consequences.<\/p>\n
Many dis\u00adtrict hea\u00adting sup\u00adp\u00adly con\u00adtracts con\u00adtain what are known as pri\u00adce adjus\u00adt\u00adment clau\u00adses. The\u00adse allow the sup\u00adpli\u00ader to uni\u00adla\u00adte\u00adral\u00adly increase the pri\u00adce during the term of the con\u00adtract. If such clau\u00adses are legal\u00adly inva\u00adlid, the ques\u00adti\u00adon ari\u00adses: what appli\u00ades to any excess amounts alre\u00ada\u00addy paid?<\/p>\n
The Fede\u00adral Court of Jus\u00adti\u00adce (BGH) had deve\u00adlo\u00adped the so-cal\u00adled \u2018three-year solu\u00adti\u00adon\u2019 for such cases. It sti\u00adpu\u00adla\u00adted that if a con\u00adsu\u00admer did not object to a pri\u00adce increase within three years, the increased pri\u00adce would be dee\u00admed to have been agreed with retroac\u00adti\u00adve effect. This allo\u00adwed uti\u00adli\u00adty com\u00adpa\u00adnies to retain their pri\u00adce increa\u00adses even whe\u00adre the under\u00adly\u00ading clau\u00adses were in fact inva\u00adlid. This signi\u00adfi\u00adcant\u00adly rest\u00adric\u00adted cus\u00adto\u00admers\u2019 abili\u00adty to cla\u00adim a refund.<\/p>\n
The Ber\u00adlin Court of Appeal had asked the Euro\u00adpean Court of Jus\u00adti\u00adce for an opi\u00adni\u00adon in the con\u00adtext of ongo\u00ading pro\u00adcee\u00addings. The case stem\u00admed from a cla\u00adim brought by a civil-law part\u00adner\u00adship against its dis\u00adtrict hea\u00adting sup\u00adpli\u00ader, which had begun as ear\u00adly as 2019.<\/p>\n
The ECJ ruled that the Fede\u00adral Court of Justice\u2019s case law con\u00adtra\u00adve\u00adnes Artic\u00adle 6(1) of the EU Direc\u00adti\u00adve on unfair terms in con\u00adsu\u00admer con\u00adtracts. This Direc\u00adti\u00adve sti\u00adpu\u00adla\u00adtes that inva\u00adlid terms sim\u00adply can\u00adnot be bin\u00adding on con\u00adsu\u00admers. Under EU law, it is not per\u00admis\u00adsi\u00adble for a con\u00adsu\u00admer to be bound by a legal\u00adly inva\u00adlid pri\u00adce increase sole\u00adly on the grounds that time has elapsed.<\/p>\n
Ano\u00adther aspect of the jud\u00adge\u00adment is par\u00adti\u00adcu\u00adlar\u00adly note\u00adwor\u00adt\u00adhy: the ECJ also cri\u00adti\u00adcis\u00aded the fact that, under pre\u00advious Ger\u00adman case law, sup\u00adpli\u00aders were per\u00admit\u00adted to uni\u00adla\u00adte\u00adral\u00adly replace an inva\u00adlid clau\u00adse with a valid one wit\u00adhout the consumer\u2019s con\u00adsent. Accor\u00adding to the ECJ, this runs coun\u00adter to the fun\u00adda\u00admen\u00adtal prin\u00adci\u00adple of con\u00adsu\u00admer pro\u00adtec\u00adtion. Con\u00adsu\u00admers must not be forced to remain bound by a con\u00adtract that has been uni\u00adla\u00adte\u00adral\u00adly amen\u00added wit\u00adhout their consent.<\/p>\n
Anyo\u00adne who recei\u00adves dis\u00adtrict hea\u00adting and suspects that their con\u00adtract con\u00adta\u00adins an inva\u00adlid pri\u00adce adjus\u00adt\u00adment clau\u00adse can now cla\u00adim back any over\u00adpay\u00adments. The gene\u00adral three-year limi\u00adta\u00adti\u00adon peri\u00adod under Ger\u00adman law appli\u00ades in this case. This means that, at pre\u00adsent, claims can be made for pay\u00adments made from 1 Janu\u00adary 2023 onwards.<\/p>\n
The Ber\u00adlin Court of Appeal must now rule on the spe\u00adci\u00adfic claims for reim\u00adbur\u00adse\u00adment in the main pro\u00adcee\u00addings, taking into account the gui\u00adde\u00adlines laid down by the Euro\u00adpean Court of Justice.<\/p>\n
Anyo\u00adne who recei\u00adves dis\u00adtrict hea\u00adting and has accept\u00aded pri\u00adce increa\u00adses in recent years wit\u00adhout objec\u00adting should exami\u00adne the legal posi\u00adti\u00adon in their spe\u00adci\u00adfic case. Whe\u00adther claims for a refund actual\u00adly exist, and if so, to what ext\u00adent, depends on the spe\u00adci\u00adfic terms of the con\u00adtract. It is advi\u00adsa\u00adble to seek legal advice in such cases.<\/p>\n
Refe\u00adrence num\u00adber:<\/strong> ECJ, Judgment of 24 Sep\u00adtem\u00adber 2026, C\u2011900\/24; Fede\u00adral Court of Jus\u00adti\u00adce (BGH), judgments of 14 March 2012, VIII ZR 113\/11, and of 25 Sep\u00adtem\u00adber 2024, VIII ZR 165\/21 and VIII ZR 20\/22.<\/p>\n