The court put an end to the amount demanded by Enefit for the termination of the contract: it was done unreasonably

It was stated that UAB “FishNet” and UAB “Enefit” in 2022 concluded a fixed-price electricity purchase-sale agreement in August, which provided that the agreement could be terminated under the conditions specified in it by paying a termination fee. The procedure for calculating this tax was specified in the conditions of the decision (pricing) of the fixed and exchange price electricity purchase.

UAB “FishNet” initiative from 2023 the contract was terminated at the end of June, therefore, as UAB “Enefit” claimed in the lawsuit, the company that terminated the contract must pay a termination fee – about 1.14 million. Eur.

UAB “FishNet”, disagreeing with the submitted lawsuit, claimed that it, as a small company, used the right established in the Law on Electricity to terminate the contract unilaterally and free of charge without a termination fee and/or damages.

The panel of judges of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal, which examined the case, noted that the provisions of Directive (EU) 2019/944 on the general rules of the internal electricity market, which provide that European Union member states must ensure that, upon termination of the electricity supply contract, at least household consumers and small companies would not have to pay any supplier change fees, the Law on Electricity and Energy was established not from 2023. on June 1, as stated by UAB “Enefit”, but from 2021 July 15

Although UAB “FishNet” and UAB “Enefit” in 2022 the concluded electricity purchase and sale agreement provided for a termination fee, but, based on the Directive and the Electricity Law implementing it, it could not be applied when terminating the contract, therefore there is no legal basis for awarding EUR 1,143,973 to UAB “Enefit” from UAB “FishNet”, – stated the Court of Appeal.