Electricity Supply: Commentary on Ruling No. 20140 of 2024
The recent ordinance of the Court of Cassation No. 20140 of July 22, 2024, offers important food for thought on electricity supply, particularly concerning the safeguard service provided for by Law Decree No. 73 of 2007. This provision is part of a complex regulatory framework and touches upon crucial aspects related to contract conclusion and the responsibilities of the parties involved.
Regulatory Context and Key Elements of the Ruling
In its decision, the Court clarifies that assuming the status of awardee for a territorial area, upon the expiry of the provisional operator's term, entails an automatic succession in the supply relationship. This phenomenon is defined as "exchange without agreement." This legal classification implies that, despite the absence of an explicit agreement, the new operator is obliged to provide the service, thus ensuring the continuity of energy supply.
- Assumption of awardee status ex lege
- Succession in the service provision relationship
- Exchange without agreement
Economic Communications and Responsibilities
A crucial aspect raised by the ruling concerns the methods of communicating economic conditions to the consumer. According to the Court's decision, communication by the new operator does not constitute a validity rule for the contract but is configured as a rule of conduct. This distinction is fundamental because the lack of such communication does not lead to the nullity of the contract but may give rise to a compensatory remedy in case of damage or disadvantage to the user.
Electricity supply - Safeguard service pursuant to art. 1, paragraph 4, of Law Decree No. 73 of 2007, converted with amendments by Law No. 125 of 2007 - De facto assumption of awardee status for a specific territorial area - Case of "exchange without agreement" - Communication of economic conditions - Validity rule - Exclusion - Basis. 160001 SUPPLY (CONTRACT OF) - IN GENERAL (DEFINITION, CHARACTERISTICS, DISTINCTIONS) In general. Regarding the supply of electricity through the provision of the "safeguard service" governed by art. 1, paragraph 4, of Law Decree No. 73 of 2007, converted with amendments by Law No. 125 of 2007, the assumption of awardee status for the relevant territorial area, upon the expiry of the provisional operator's term, determines ex lege the succession in the relationship concerning the provision of the service, thus giving rise to a case of "exchange without agreement," with respect to which the communication to the user of the economic conditions, to be carried out by the new operator pursuant to art. 5 of the Ministerial Decree of November 23, 2007, and art. 15 of resolution No. 156 of 2007 of the Authority for electricity, gas and the water system (now ARERA), does not constitute a validity rule (given the total hetero-regulation of the relationship), but rather a rule of conduct, the omission of which does not result in nullity, but only in a possible compensatory remedy attributable to the lesser advantage or greater burden for the user.
Conclusions
In conclusion, ordinance No. 20140 of 2024 represents an important step forward in understanding electricity supply and its legal implications. It clarifies that, although the succession in the service occurs automatically, economic communications remain fundamental to protect users' rights. The distinction between validity rules and rules of conduct, as highlighted by the Court, paves the way for a more careful analysis of the responsibilities of the parties involved, shedding light on a topic of great current relevance and social importance.
