The reasons behind the decision

Over the course of an authority investigation, NMHH examined the legality of Telenor's unilateral amendments executed with the effective date of July 25, 2014, to ascertain whether such amendments were in compliance with the provisions set forth in the rules applicable to electronic communications. The investigation concluded with the finding that Telenor presumably acted illegally, therefore the authority had initiated a general supervisory authority proceeding, which concluded with the issuance of a resolution on May 15, 2015.

The rules applicable to electronic communications unequivocally provide that also with regard to the individual subscriber agreements, the service provider is entitled to unilaterally amend the subscriber agreements in cases where this act is justified by a substantive change in circumstances that could not have been foreseen in advance at the time the agreement had been entered into.

The service provider unilaterally amended the individual subscriber agreements with an effective date of July 25, 2014, justifying the increase in the service fee with subsequent changes in circumstances. On the one hand, the service provider justified this action with the increase, due to inflation, in the price of real estates where devices facilitating the operation of the network are placed, and on the other hand with the increase in costs stemming from the changes in the HUF/EUR rate of exchange; the third reason cited was a result of the amendments made to the Act on electronic communications (Eht.) and to the implementation decrees - such as, for example, the structure of the individual subscriber agreement, the introduction of the new liquidated damages scheme, and the necessity of transforming the number portability.

Over the course of the investigated unilateral contractual amendments, Telenor raised the fees of a total of 93 Telenor tariff packages.

Telenor's unilateral contractual amendment violates consumer interests, as the service provider may only amend subscriber agreements unilaterally in precisely defined cases. Pursuant to the relevant provisions, the agreements may only be amended via the mutual intention of the parties. The service provider may only make unilateral amendments in extraordinary cases, when the extent, intensity or sudden occurance of the changes that have taken place do not facilitate the bilateral amendment of the contracts within the framework of the regular course of business, or the development of a new tariff package adjusted to the changed situation. If this exceptional situation does not apply, the service provider may only  amend the agreement bilaterally, on the basis of a consensus established with the subscriber.

The fine

As a consequence of the unlawful behaviour of the service provider, the Authority applied the legal consequences set forth in the law on electronic communications - in accordance with the doctrines of gradualism and proportionality - and levied a fine of HUF 250 million on the company, imposing a fine of HUF 500 thousand on its Chief Executive Officer for the repeated violation of the prevailing rules applicable to electronic communications and of the general contractual terms.

The Authority has found Telenor's practice in connection with unilateral contractual amendments unlawful on multiple occasions since 2010; NMHH has fined the service provider several times previously as a result of its unilateral contractual amendments.

As it is well known, the Authority supervises the enforcement of and compliance with the rules applicable to electronic communications, the performance of the provisions of the general contractual terms and verifies the implementation of the decisions. The Authority shapes the form of the sanction and the extent of the fine by considering multiple aspects, thus, for example, the severity of the case, the high number of affected subscribers, recurring offences, the interest violated by the illegality and the financial advantages obtained.
The decision on the level of the first instance is not yet binding; the service provider may file an appeal against the decision to the President of the Authority.