The Lazio TAR, with two twin sentences of 12 June 2024, confirmed the existence of the unfair commercial practice by the two municipalities, ascertaining the existence of the conduct relating to the failure to inform citizens of the possibility of objecting to the statute of limitations, condemning the two common to a fine of €5,000.00 each.
“These sentences are important because they establish the principle that the consumer must always be informed by the service provider of all the rights and faculties arising from the legal relationship that binds them: therefore, beyond the actual possibility of successfully challenging the prescription of the credit, the consumer must simply be informed, in the manner prescribed by Arera, of the existence of this possibility” states the lawyer. Ivana Russo, from the National Consumers Union of Cassino who raised the issue, presented the complaint to the Antitrust and who, together with the lawyer. Antonio Calvani, you intervened in opposition to the TAR.
However, the Antitrust provision was partially cancelled, with regards to aggressive practices.
“The two-year prescription required separating the costs relating to water consumption from other non-prescription costs in the bill and informing consumers of the possibility of raising the prescription exception. Consequently, the omission of information legitimizes the actions of the Antitrust. Now this sentence will have a decisive weight in the ongoing civil proceedings” concludes Russo.
We read in the sentence of the TAR of Lazio that “the local authority has not provided consumers with the information necessary for the correct exercise of their rights arising from the contractual relationship. In particular, the Municipality did not include in the invoices the information necessary to inform the user of the existence of a new and different prescription regulation, as well as the possibility of objecting to it as indicated by Arera: the latter, moreover, has identified a standard notification formula for all SII managers which the local authority has never reported in its documents addressed to users. Furthermore, contrary to the Arera prescriptions, the Municipality did not highlight, either on the invoice or in another separate document, the amount of the amounts claimed for consumption exceeding two years, for which the user could have objected to the short prescription. In addition, the Municipality has not published, on the website, any information relating to the entry into force of the new institution of the short prescription and the methods for objecting to it”.
We remind you that the Municipality of Prata Sannita will still have to pay the additional sum of €10,000.00 as an additional sanction issued by the Antitrust for not having complied with the Authority’s provision.
