[ad_1]
Yes because a making a watershed between a legitimate unilateral change and an illegitimate one is whether or not the economic conditions are about to expire. For the five companies mentioned at the beginning, reference is made to precautionary measures partially confirmed because they apply exclusively to those unilateral changes made to non-expiring contractual conditionsas the AGCM points out:
On December 29, the Antitrust Authority, on the basis of the principles expressed by the Council of State, partially confirmed the precautionary measures issued on December 12 against Enel, Eni, Edison, Acea and Engie, suspending the only unilateral changes to the economic conditions not due to expire
These changes violate the Consumer Code and are in contrast with article 3 of the Decree Law of 9 August 2022 n.115 (the so-called Decreo Aiuti bis, converted into law n.142 of 21 September 2022). The regulation suspends until 30 April 2023 the contractual clauses that allow companies to change the supply price, and the related communications without notice. Exceptions are price changes already finalized before the entry into force of the decree.
The Authority therefore, within the explicit limits, confirmed the precautionary measures against Enel, Eni, Edison, Acea and Engie, suspending the effectiveness of all communications of unilateral changes and/or renewal/updating/variation of the economic conditions of offer of permanent contracts, without a clear, effective and predetermined or predeterminable expiry.
Specifically, Enel, Eni, Edison Acea and Engie following the precautionary measures they will not be able to change the economic conditions of the supplies to consumers, condominiums and micro-enterprises if the same do not have an effective expiry. The companies concerned now have five days to communicate the implementation of the measures.
[ad_2]
Source link
