Federal Court of Justice, 11 November 2010, Ref.: III ZR 57/10
The cancellation of long-term telecommunications contracts is repeatedly the subject of legal disputes.
Pursuant to Section 314 (1) BGB, either party may terminate continuing obligations for good cause without observing a notice period. According to the law, such a reason exists if the terminating party cannot reasonably be expected to continue the contractual relationship until the agreed termination or until the expiry of a notice period, taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case and weighing up the interests of both parties. It should be noted that, according to case law, disruptions from one's own area of risk, such as the insolvency risk of a contractual partner, do not generally constitute good cause.
In the above-mentioned judgement, the BGH had to deal with the question of whether a DSL connection can be terminated prematurely if the tenant moves to a location that is not yet "supplied" with DSL.
FactsThe plaintiff (tenant) had concluded a 24-month continuing obligation contract with the defendant (telecommunications company) for the provision of a DSL connection. About six months after the conclusion of the contract, the plaintiff moved within the same district to another municipality which was not yet supplied with DSL connections. The plaintiff then gave the defendant special notice of termination for good cause. When the defendant continued to demand the agreed monthly basic fee, the plaintiff filed an action for a declaratory judgement that the continuing obligation was effectively terminated by the special termination. This action for a declaratory judgement was dismissed in all previous instances.
Federal Court of JusticeThe BGH followed the view of the defendant and also dismissed the action for a declaratory judgement. Contrary to the plaintiff's view, there was no good cause for termination pursuant to Section 626 (1) or Section 314 (1) sentence 2 BGB. Such a reason does not exist in principle if it is derived from events that are beyond the control of the other contractual partner and originate from the sphere of interest of the terminating party. The relocation of the plaintiff is such an event, as it is completely beyond the influence of the defendant and only originates from the plaintiff's sphere of interest. In addition, the investments made by the defendant, which also provided the plaintiff with the necessary technical equipment (router, WLAN stick) among other things, are only amortised within the second year of the contract.
Source: Federal Court of Justice
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.