THEREantitrust sanctions for over 15 million euros six energy companies (Enel Energia, Eni Plenitude, Acea, Dolomiti, Edison and Ibedrola) for having conditioned users to accept worsening contractual changes, resulting in significant increases in bills, in contrast with the regulatory protection deriving from Article 3 of the Aid Decree bis. The Draghi government had established the suspension of "any possible contractual clause that allows the electricity and natural gas supplier company to unilaterally modify the general contract conditions relating to the definition of the price". The extent of the sanctions for the six companies is very different: Enel received the heaviest fine of 10 million euros to follow Eni Fullness with 5 million euros - which announced the possibility of "challenging the provision" -, to scale That with 560 thousand euros, The Dolomites with 50 thousand, Ibedrola with 25 thousand and, finally, Edison with 5 thousand euros. The type of practice deemed incorrect which the Competition and Market Authority sanctioned is also different.
The violations
Enel ed Eni are accused of having "unilaterally changed the energy supply prices to over 4 million consumers, on the basis of contractual clauses which allow the companies themselves to decide at their own discretion whether and when to change the tariffs, once the offer prices have expired economic choice”, claims the Antitrust. However, the change occurred at a highly critical moment for the market and with the protection of the Aid decree, even years after the actual expiry of their offer and with strong increases in bills, without them having received any communication on the matter. In the case of Enel, the Authority underlines, it is the first time that the maximum law has been applied since the Consumer Code was modified.
That e The Dolomites they predicted that communications of unilateral price changes, sent before the ban came into force, would be finalized 10 days after they were sent without respecting the 90-day notice period. Iberdrola, however, was fined for having sent letters in which "it threatened the termination of the contract due to excessive onerousness" in the event that the consumer had not accepted the new contract with the increases, always with the aim of circumventing article 3 of the decree. Edisonfinally, it applied the price increase before the expected end of the offer, but in this case it had already made refreshments and the unilateral changes had only affected a marginal number of consumers. This is why the statutory minimum of 5 thousand euros was imposed.
The reactions of Eni and Enel
Eni Plenitude, "reaffirming the correctness of its actions, will analyze the Authority's provisions, reserving the right to challenge the provision". A path that will probably also be followed by other companies.
Enel also reaffirms “full correctness” of their work. “The company limited itself to carrying out mere renewals of the expiring economic conditions for its customers, as provided for in the contract, without instead proceeding with any unilateral variation of the same during their validity”, we read in a note from the advertising giant 'power. “Enel Energia therefore reserves all actions for its own protection, confident that it will be able to demonstrate the full correctness of its actions, as the administrative judge has already had the opportunity to recognize who, albeit in a precautionary manner, has not identified any violations on the part of Enel Energia of the contractual regulations nor of art. 3 of the Aiuti bis decree", concludes the note.
