Termination of DSL connection on important grounds?

It is not uncommon for holders of a DSL connection to relocate during the term of their contract with the telecommunications company and subsequently discover that DSL-capable lines have not yet been laid at their new place of residence and DSL is therefore not available there. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) then had to decide whether in such a case the existing contract with the telecommunications company can be terminated on important grounds.

In the dispute at issue, a consumer concluded a contract with a telecommunications company in May 2007 for the provision of a DSL connection with a term of two years, by means of which he obtained access to the Internet including Internet telephony at his place of residence at that time. In November 2007, the customer relocated to another municipality in the same district. However, DSL-capable lines had not been laid there, so that the telecommunications company was unable to provide the customer with a DSL connection at his new place of residence.

He then declared the "special termination" of the contract.
The company, however, insisted unchanged on the agreed monthly basic fee. With his subsequent action, the customer demanded a declaration that the concluded contract was effectively terminated by the termination.
Before the Local Court (AG) Montabaur and also before the Regional Court (LG) Koblenz as the appellate court, the action was unsuccessful.

Court decision
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) confirmed the appellate court decision in its judgment of 11.11.2010 – Az. III ZR 57/10 Accordingly, the customer had no important ground for termination.

Such a ground does not exist in principle if it is derived from events that are outside the influence of the other contracting party and emanate from the sphere of interests of the party terminating the contract. The customer who concludes a longer-term contract for the provision of a service bears in principle the risk of being unable to utilise it due to a change in his personal circumstances.

Accordingly, a relocation, for instance for professional or family reasons, is in principle not an important ground for termination. In addition, in the case at issue, the comparatively long term of the DSL connection contract constitutes the economic "consideration" of the customer for a low monthly basic rate, and a contract with a shorter term or subject to monthly termination would also have been possible at higher costs. Moreover, the investments made by the company, which in particular provided the customer with the necessary technical equipment (router, WLAN stick), only amortised themselves within the second year of the contract.

Conclusion

The central essence of this decision of the BGH is the allocation of risk to the detriment of customers of telecommunications companies: Whoever concludes a longer-term contract for the provision of a service bears in principle the risk of being unable to utilise it due to a change in his personal circumstances.

For the future, it remains to be seen to what extent the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) will extend this principle to other longer-term contracts for the provision of a service.