Your telecommunications rightsLaw and regulationCourt

Penalties for early termination of a mobile phone subscription may be challenged in court and reduced if necessary.

The Court of Cassation approved a court that had divided by six the amount claimed by a supplier from a customer who had broken his 24-month commitment.

The example

The supplier claimed the legal maximum, which represented almost all of the amounts due for the two-year subscription. He was invoking a clause in the contract. This clause, which provides for compensation to the other party in the event of early termination, is a means of compelling the customer to perform the contract, the court observed. This is a predetermined sanction that the Civil Code calls a "penal clause" and the law provides that the judge may always moderate a penal clause if it is excessive.

This time, the court held that the telephone provider was not prejudiced since, in the absence of payment, it no longer provided any services. The supplier argued that by granting a discount on the telephone provided, it would lose money in the event of an early break-up, which justified the amount claimed.

The Court of Cassation rejected the argument. The court hearing the case was sovereign in assessing the existence and extent of any harm, taking into account the rights and obligations of each party, as well as in reducing the penalty to more appropriate proportions, it concluded.

What the law says

In force since 2008, the Chatel law provides greater protection for consumers who have subscribed to a mobile package. It makes it possible to terminate early and at a lower cost in some cases. The period of engagement with a mobile telephone operator may not exceed 24 months.