Case C‑332/17

Starman AS

v

Tarbijakaitseamet

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Article 21 — Consumer contracts — Telephone communications — Practice of a telecommunication services provider consisting in offering its customers who have already concluded a contract a speed dial number at a rate higher than the basic rate)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 13 September 2018

Consumer protection — Consumer contracts — Directive 2011/83 — Communications by telephone — Operation of several telephone lines by a trader to enable consumers to contact him in relation to a concluded contract — Telephone lines accessible through a landline or speed dial number — Cost of a call to a speed dial number higher than the basic rate — Not permissible

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/83, Art. 21, first para.)

The first subparagraph of Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as precluding a situation in which, if a trader has made available to all its customers one or more speed dial numbers at a rate higher than the basic rate, consumers who have concluded a contract with the trader in question pay more than the basic rate when contacting that trader by telephone in relation to that contract.

This interpretation is in no way called into question by the fact that the trader has informed the consumer in a comprehensible and easily accessible manner of the existence of a telephone number at the basic rate. That information does not release the trader from his obligation not to charge a consumer who has already concluded a contract with him more than the basic rate where the consumer contacts him by telephone in relation to that contract.

Similarly, the fact that the consumer, when contacting the trader, chose voluntarily to use the speed dial number with a higher rate than the basic rate has no bearing on that interpretation. If Articles 21 and 25 of Directive 2011/83 are read together, it is apparent that the consumer cannot voluntarily waive his rights under the Directive and pay more than the basic rate when he contacts a trader by telephone.

(see paras 31-33, operative part)