The case touches on an issue of fundamental importance for businesses using comprehensive energy supply contracts – namely, the rights of the end customer when terminating a contract concluded for an indefinite period.
Factual state
The firm’s client entered into a comprehensive agreement with the plaintiff – an energy seller based in Gliwice – for the sale and distribution of electricity for an indefinite period, with a one-month notice period. When he received a better market offer and decided to change supplier, he submitted a notice of termination of the contract with the notice period stipulated therein. In response, the energy seller issued a debit note amounting to more than PLN 90,000 in liquidated damages.
The Firm’s argument and the Court’s decision
First of all, the HWW law firm showed that the termination of the contract had already occurred at the end of 2023 – as a result of an effectively served notice of termination by our client to the vendor. This meant that the subsequent price list never came into effect and could not bind the defendant company, and thus there was no basis for any penalty.
Notwithstanding the above, the court also analyzed the case through the prism of Article 4j (3) of the Energy Law. This provision grants the final customer the right to terminate a contract concluded for an indefinite period without incurring any additional costs. If this right is exercised, the customer is obliged only to pay the amounts due for the fuel or energy actually consumed and the distribution services provided – and nothing more.
The Court’s position corresponds to the well-established line of case law, including the Supreme Court’s judgment of January 17, 2020 (ref. IV CSK 579/17), according to which Article 4j (3) of the Energy Law implements the principle of no-cost termination of a contract for the sale of electricity and cannot be the basis for charging the end user with a contractual penalty.
Significance of the settlement for entrepreneurs
The ruling sends an important signal to all businesses that are end users of electricity or gaseous fuels.
The Energy Law unequivocally sides with end users – it provides them with the freedom to switch vendors without risking additional financial burdens. The key distinction here is between a contract for an indefinite period – where the full protection of Article 4j(3) of the Energy Law applies – and a contract for a definite period, where the legal situation is different.
The case also shows how important it is to carefully analyze the legal and factual situation before deciding to change energy suppliers – both in terms of how to give notice and its legal consequences.
Team
The HWW law firm’s litigation team was responsible for handling the case: trainee attorney Adrianna Bracichowicz and attorney Adrian Lukasik, under the supervision of Partner Aleksandra Lindner.
Adrianna Bracichowicz is a dedicated lawyer at our firm, specializing in business law and also in litigation law. She graduated with a master's degree from the University of Wroclaw, and also developed her skills while studying at the University of Bergen in Norway under the Erasmus+ program. She is currently continuing her legal education by completing the first year of her lawyer's apprenticeship.
View profile →HWW lawyers offer consultations in Warsaw and online.
Do not miss the next analysis
Key legal changes and their business impact, once a month to your inbox.
By subscribing you accept the privacy policy. Unsubscribe with one click.
